Exactly. There is *internal* evidence for when they were written, often when the stories were originally told.
On top of that comes the archeological evidence, the historical evidence, the textual evidence, etc.
Very poor evidence, at best. It is easy enough for a writer at a later date to *claim* an earlier date and *claim* to be by the prophet. Such writing by later authors is *common* in ancient texts. Given that 'publication' wasn't a thing at the time, there would be very little to dispute such...
Yes, so? What does that have to do with whether your choices are free?
Is that because you think it isn't possible to know the future? Or is it simply because you don't think that person is capable of knowing the future?
Once again, it is irrelevant what they *say*. If they *know* the future...
Well, if all copies and mentions of the text happen after a certain time, and the number of mentions increases quickly after that time, it is good evidence of the text being written at that time.
Do you have any evidence that it was written earlier?
Irrelevant. If it is possible to know, then there is only one possible future and *that* means that we do not determine our desires or, thereby, our choices.
And how would it be different outside of time? if the spacetime manifold can be known, it is fixed. If it is fixed, then the specific...
And the question is whether the choices made are already determined by the past. Is the agent *actually* free to select among possible alternatives or is it simply an illusion that they feel like they do? Even if they *want* the alternative, are they free to *want* something other? or is that...
Parts of the future are fixed by our actions. Our actions are fixed by our choices.
Now, are our choices fixed? COULD we have chosen otherwise or is it simply an illusion that we *feel* like we can?
And what fixes what we choose?
The problem is what fixes our choices. Are we actually free to...
So, if not completely predetermined, how much flexibility is there? How is it put into effect? What mechanisms allow us to choose a future in those cases where we can?
OK, the future is fixed by our actions. But are our actions fixed? If they are, then the choices are not free (they could not be otherwise because they are fixed). But our actions (and choices) are part of the events in the future and, in a deterministic system, are fixed.
I am NOT assuming...
That seems to ignore that if the science and math says there can only be one possible future, that would negate the existence of free will.
Legal fictions are just that: fictions. You see, laws are *human* inventions and reflect the biases we have. Those biases might not be accurate.
I have often found that philosophers would do well to learn a bit of mathematics. In this case, learning about partial orders would be an immense help. In particular, the distinction between maximal and largest is relevant here. Something is maximal if there is nothing greater. It is largest is...
Since you mention topology below, it is probably more accurate to say that a limit towards infinity is getting farther away from *every* number.
There is a standard way of dealing with this for any locally compact hausdorff space, called the one-point compactification. This is a 'smallest'...
The second law is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. In the long run it is *expected* to be violated by the very way it is supported in statistical mechanics. I'd suggest you look up the concept of the Poincare recurrence time.
The point is that significant violations are very unlikely...
We are talking about a collection of incredibly unlikely possibilities and arguing about which probability is larger or smaller than another.
You are assuming that causality makes sense outside of the universe, where that is the only place we know causality applies. You are arguing that a...
Notice that this is what would happen if the strength of gravity *suddenly* changed *right now*. Similar massive die offs would happen if the Earth *suddenly* slowed its rate of rotation to once every 22 hours.. But that is not what we are talking about. If gravity were 10% stronger from the...
Was Jesus talking to only those present? Was he only talking to Jews as opposed to Gentiles? Is 'spiritual' baptism sufficient or does it need to be physical?
Note that Jesus does NOT say that those who are not baptized will be condemned: only those who do not believe. So already there is a...