Quanta behaves probabilistically, not randomly. — Rich

As proofed by quantum cryptography, quantum effects deliver the "highest quality of randomness" technically available nowadays (cf. Nature, 540, 213–219 (08 December 2016) doi:10.1038/nature20119) Randomness always occurs within given circumstances and boundaries. Our concept of probability is based upon inductive inferences, which ist according to Hume rather a guessing based on prejudices. (In my Essay "Believing veraciously" at "Internet Archive" I discuss all the empistemological problems associated with induction and came to the conclusion that even science is inevitably based on beliefs.)

Do you feel that you are acting randomly in life? — Rich

I had to think a lot about wrong decisions in my life hitherto. Retrospectively I came to the conclusion that it was "a mixture of chance and necessity" that formed my way. I consider myself as a part of a mysterious reality somehow in the sense of Buddhist "sunyata" (although I am definitely not a Buddhist).

Should we consider an advanced robot in future as "FREE", if it simulates reasoning by implemented logic, compassion by special fuzzy logic units and "free decisions" by an implemented random generator? (Let's suppose that such a robot would have been designed in way that it behaves in a way similar to humans. So the randomness would be limited to situations and to boundaries that all in all its behavior looks somehow human.)

In terms of life as we experience it, probability is a result of habitual behavior (which is approximately repetitive) and an impulse (novelty) from the creative mind acted on by will. — Rich

What is the difference between a creative mind's will and a random generator, if its decisions within certain boundaries do not depend on anything?

Maybe the suspicion against

attempts to shift the burden of proof — jorndoe

alludes to Russel's teapot. Of course every proponent of a specific religion cannot demand a disproof from disbelievers. Rather he/she has to deliver really good reasons for believing. On the other hand an atheist stating that there isn't any form of a divine entity and one should believe in plain naturalism makes a claim, which needs to be vindicated sufficiently either. Maybe the most teapot-like (admittedly there is a problem with definition) extraterrestial object in the solar system has an amazing similarity with something that would be generally accepted as a teapot. In analogy a god-like being might exist, that shows more similarities with Gods of known religions than atheists would suspect.

There is nothing random nor determined in our lives. It is probabilistic. — Rich

Probability is the result of an interaction of "chance and necessity". Let's take a normal dice. The regular cubical shape with the six faces determines that the result of a throw will be a number of pips between one and six. The probability for each number should be one sixth. The boundaries of the situation exclude zero or numbers greater than six. Past experiences, a person's character, his/her karma, God's predestination, etc. etc. might form an influencing framework for a decision. But if nothing determines the result within certain boundaries the remaining rest is pure fortuity. This is what I meant, when I said that volitions either depend on something or are at least partly stochastic.

No matter, whether God exists or plain naturalism is true, the term "free will" is rather inconsistent. Either my volitions are thoroughly connected to other events in reality or I am at least partly a random generator. Is something that is just stochastic really "free"? Confer my essay "Believing veraciously" at "Internet Archive".

Atheism is just one form of belief. In an essay published at "Internet Archive", titled "Believing veraciously", I tried to show that we can't avoid believing, but we should do it veraciously. I am pleading for an agnostic belief including all sorts of metaphysics.

A philosophical essay, I published only today, tries to show that induction is unavoidably necessary, but always has the character of a belief or even of a "prejudice". You can find my text titled "Believing veraciously" in the "Internet Archive". There is also an older German version of the text.