The apologetics game!

Originally posted by lemon lime
A knights entire sphere of influence for one move is more than a simple L shape. So it's actually more useful to see a knight move as circle rather than an L when looking ahead in a game... saves time and effort.

RJHinds famously made a fool of himself on the Chess Forum a year or two ago ~ having agreed to leave the site if discovered to have used a chess engine to obtain his 2270 chess rating (a promise he then rescinded when the evidence was placed before him) ~ when he talked about having difficulty visualizing knight moves. Presumably he might reach 2700 or so when he does get the hang of the knight.

Originally posted by lemon lime
So then, getting back to your question again, I first have to ask you (and get an answer) as to what exactly is it do you believe we should be talking about.

What evidence do you have that I "never believed in the existence of God"?

Originally posted by DeepThought
You might want to be careful about making statements about other people's intelligence.

The apparent meaning of the statement "I will harden his heart" is that God will prevent the Pharaoh from allowing the release of the Israelites. You are claiming that it has a meaning other than the obvious one. This means that you are not taking this part of th ...[text shortened]... n without bringing predestination into it, as has been discussed in other threads in this forum.

Oh come on, DeepThought, maybe it's time for you to start living up to your name.

Your complaint is a common error, assuming the people who wrote the books of the Old Testament were following the exact same speech and thought patterns we are familiar with today.

The same problem always crops up with any phrase that begins with the word 'today' [or includes the word 'day'], such as "Today I say unto you..." or "In the the day that you eat of it..." We naturally assume there is some special significance in starting a sentence with the word 'today', because for us it is unnecessary to say you are telling someone something "today".

"In the day" something happens simply means when it happens, and when starting a statement with the word today [as in "Today I say unto you"] the word today is simply used as emphasis, rather than in identifying exactly what day it is.

Another example of emphasis you may not be familiar with (because it's another outdated way of speaking) is to repeat what is said... repeating what has just been said was a technique of communication to get across the importance of a statement. We obviously don't do that today because to our way of thinking it is simply redundant or unnecessary... although, there have been times here when doing that might actually prove useful. But that's a topic for another discussion...

So believe it or not, if you were to ask Moses when he was writing Exodus what it means when it says God hardened someones heart, he might tell you it means God allowed someones heart to become hardened. And although there is literally no direct connection, that you could draw a line on paper between points A and B to prove causing something to happen could not be by allowing it to happen, a cause and effect relationship still existed in the minds of writers and readers of that time period... if not directly, then by willful default of not acting to stop an action.

If you want to understand what the writer of any ancient book is saying, then sometimes you need to read between the lines and always consider the context. But it won't work if you expect any and all ancient scripts (not just the Bible) to read like a Harry Potter adventure or a college textbook or dime store novel, or expect for it to resemble any modern style of writing.

Originally posted by FMF
RJHinds famously made a fool of himself on the Chess Forum a year or two ago ~ having agreed to leave the site if discovered to have used a chess engine to obtain his 2270 chess rating (a promise he then rescinded when the evidence was placed before him) ~ when he talked about having difficulty visualizing knight moves. Presumably he might reach 2700 or so when he does get the hang of the knight.

How was this discovered, and what was this evidence? You didn't say whether RJ admitted to cheating or not, so unless he made an admission of guilt I must assume innocence unless proven guilty... which anyone is entitled to unless the evidence is absolutely rock solid and indisputable.

Originally posted by FMF
What evidence do you have that I "never believed in the existence of God"?

That isn't something I can say one way or the other. It appears that way to me, but I don't know... only you are able to look back and see for yourself if this is true or not.

If you are right and God doesn't exist then it's nothing for you to concern yourself with. But if God does exist (and the existence of anything is not dependent on whether we believe in its existence or not) then it might be prudent to take care of some soul searching now, rather than later when it may be too late to do anything about it.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you are right and God doesn't exist then it's nothing for you to concern yourself with.

I have never claimed that God does not exist. I am a theist.

Originally posted by lemon lime
How was this discovered, and what was this evidence? You didn't say whether RJ admitted to cheating or not, so unless he made an admission of guilt I must assume innocence unless proven guilty... which anyone is entitled to unless the evidence is absolutely rock solid and indisputable.

It's an old story involving work done by prominent chess players/analysts and which played itself out very much in public. The evidence was pretty much incontrovertible and RJHinds said he would abide by the results of the analysis but then changed his mind when the engine use was demonstrated. I am not going over it all for you. If Proper Knob can recall the threads involved, he might tell you. I only mentioned it to explain the context of RJHinds' peculiar remarks about knight moves when he was claiming to have a genuine 2200+ chess rating.

FMF: What evidence do you have that I "never believed in the existence of God"?

Originally posted by lemon lime
That isn't something I can say one way or the other. It appears that way to me, but I don't know... only you are able to look back and see for yourself if this is true or not.

How exactly does it "appear that way" to you? As I have explained ~ numerous times ~ I was a believer in the Christian God for nearly 30 years. Why or how does it appear to you that I "never believed in the existence of God"? I haven't said I was an atheist for 28 years; I have explained that I believed in Jesus for that time. You surely can't be making the suggestion/assertion that I "never" did for no reason at all? If it's just attempted 'banter' on your part, perhaps you should say.

Originally posted by FMF
I have never claimed that God does not exist. I am a theist.

If you hadn't told me I never would have guessed. Okay then, so apparently your belief in God is in some way different from the God of the Old Testament, or of the Old and New Testament. So to your way of thinking is God a real entity or an abstract? Can he be defined as a sentient intelligent being, or as simply a force existing outside the normal boundaries of physical existence? Is he a creator of anything, or does he simply exist with no reason to act or interact with humanity?

I'm just tossing out some questions here, but don't feel you need to answer any of them... I'm somewhat curious is all.

Originally posted by lemon lime
If you hadn't told me I never would have guessed. Okay then, so apparently your belief in God is in some way different from the God of the Old Testament, or of the Old and New Testament. So to your way of thinking is God a real entity or an abstract? Can he be defined as a sentient intelligent being, or as simply a force existing outside the normal ...[text shortened]... me questions here, but don't feel you need to answer any of them... I'm somewhat curious is all.

I have discussed these things in the past at various times in this forum. I don't wish to discuss it now. I am more interested in how you can take it upon yourself to declare almost three decades of life as a Christian as "never [having] believed in the existence of God"? I am interested in whether this suggestion by you is a product of you wanting to been seen to assert the rigour of your own faith and fervour ~ as compared to my lost faith ~ or whether your stance is an intellectual and sincere one. I am still thinking that it may have been 'banter' and that you now want to change the subject.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Okay then, so apparently your belief in God is in some way different from the God of the Old Testament, or of the Old and New Testament.

Let's not change the subject. When I was a Christian my belief in God was based on the Bible.

Originally posted by FMF
How exactly does it "appear that way" to you? As I have explained ~ numerous times ~ I was a believer in the Christian God for nearly 30 years. Why or how does it appear to you that I "never believed in the existence of God"? I haven't said I was an atheist for 28 years; I have explained that I believed in Jesus for that time. You surely can't be making the sugg ...[text shortened]... did for no reason at all? If it's just attempted 'banter' on your part, perhaps you should say.

You're asking me to explain how it appears to me? That's something I might be able to clearly explain to you, but I've already learned what a chore it can be to explain something like this.... so I'd rather not go there.

You've had plenty of opportunity to learn some things about me from what I've written, just as I have had plenty of opportunity to learn some things about you from what you've written... so let's just leave it at that, okay?

Originally posted by FMF
Let's not change the subject. When I was a Christian my belief in God was based on the Bible.

What is the subject?

Originally posted by FMF
It's an old story involving work done by prominent chess players/analysts and which played itself out very much in public. The evidence was pretty much incontrovertible and RJHinds said he would abide by the results of the analysis but then changed his mind when the engine use was demonstrated. I am not going over it all for you. If Proper Knob can recall the t ...[text shortened]... ' peculiar remarks about knight moves when he was claiming to have a genuine 2200+ chess rating.

Why are you even bringing this up? It has nothing to do with anything that any of us have been talking about here. Do you delight in reminding people of their past indiscretions and mistakes? It certainly seems (appears) that way to me.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Why are you even bringing this up? It has nothing to do with anything that any of us have been talking about here. Do you delight in reminding people of their past indiscretions and mistakes? It certainly seems (appears) that way to me.

It followed on from wolfgang59's quip at the bottom of page 8.