Ziryab:I adjusted my settings to 2300 max. I tried challenging you but as you said you aren't accepting to just challenge me again if you will. 

The deed is done. Play well!

Well... theoretically yes, but I don't think that's ever going to be an issue ... Why do u ask?

http://www.chess.com/echess/game?id=78682968

Evolution of Chess Style... interesting name for the game.

My profile photo is Max, but he's named for a nineteenth century explorer rather than a twentieth century chess champion.

I didn't say or imply that you have to do that. I am also not trying to score on your choice of words nor trying to push you into some kind of reasoning. The only thing I wanted to point out is the difference between strong reasoning and better reasoning. That difference is independent of the values one has.

BTW, I don't believe in evolution nor do I believe in God. They are both facts.

*cough cough*

Lol, I could expect that from you. :-)

God is a fact? I believe you may be right, but must insist that s/he/it remains in the realm of faith. Evolution, however, is a theory that accounts for the known facts even as these facts change due to improvements in human observation. 

As the blind cosmonauts pointed out so long ago, g-d remains outside of our capacity for observation.

@Ziryab: if direct observation would be solely leading, then were a lot of theories in big trouble.

I think that reasoning, particularly rethorics and logic, is important in the establishment of facts, and that things have to be accepted when its existence can not be denied by perception, but that things are not straightforward refuted because we can not perceive them. Gravity for instance is never directly observed, but its effect on a daily basis is. What it exactly is, is as far as I know still to be unveiled, but that it is, is beyond any type of reasoning.

To me, it can't be in the realm of faith, but I understand it when people decide otherwise. When I hear about a God that reasons as a human, then is it for me too in the realm of faith. In that part in which I have collected those believes I do not believe in, like a time machine and dinosaurs other then birds still roaming the world. 

If that blind cosmonaut had a valuable argument, how can we ever understand how bats navigate?

blind cosmonaut is a metaphor, and likely based on an apocryphal story

“The earth was blue but there was no god.”

― Yuri Gagarin

Gravity is well-supported by human observation, as is evolution. The observed "facts" are that things fall at a measurable rate. The theory of gravity accounts for these facts.

Of course the average human supports evolution. We know ppl are getting dumber. Duh.

I support a certain football club, that is my choice. I do not support evolution. That is not a choice, it is a fact.

@Ziryab: Yeah, I understood it as a metaphor. I was reacting on the underlying assertion.

Gravity and evolution are facts, we agree about that. I have no measurable evidence to support my other fact, which is a good reason (lack of communicable evidence) that other people have a different evaluation on that question.

There is nothing factual about god ATM, perhaps in the future there will be, but for the moment, it is entirely based on faith (or logical fallacies :))

O, that's what u mean by posthumous? In that case no, the title has to be awarded to an account that exists at the time the award is given. If during the voting process one of the candidates has his account deleted, he is taken off the ballot, and those who cast their votes for him may vote for another candidate.

The theory of evolution is the best explanation of  the origins of man based on scientific method. Science deals with hypotheses and theories. The observable fact is the apple hitting Newton's noggin. Gravity is the theory of why the apple falls rather than floating in the air.

By trying to establish the existance of God as fact, centuries of work done by philosophers and theologians has done an outstanding job of proving that it can't be done. This is easily resolved by believers with a scientific, rational, etc., etc., orientation. Of all our experiences in life, how many are based on fact and can be proven, and how many can be put in the realm of faith and irrationality? If a policeman clocks me driving too fast, he has factual evidence for the ticket he gives me. OK, maybe not the best example.

On the other had, is romantic love real? This was the query of the great American philosopher, Bruce Springsteen. Is love a true emotion, or is it a combination of lust, affection, the desire not to be lonely, jelousy? You can't say. It's beyond the realm of reason, but is there anything that makes life worth living more than a loving relationship?

To say the existence of God cannot be proven using the tools of reason is in no way demeaning. There is nothing wrong with saying God is real to you, but it must be understood that this is a subjective statement.

ep-"is there anything that makes life worth living more than a loving relationship?"

This is a rhetorical question, right?

I'll say!

@electricpawn: first of all: I love science and I think it is awesome. Don't think that I am for one moment in the camp of people who deny reality because they believe in God. I don't want to do that. My God is more inspired by Spinoza - and some other experiences - who saw God and nature as one.

Your view on science is an idealized one. The situation is more complex, but anyhow, we agree that science is a very beautiful human endeavour. The only thing lacking in a lot of science is the quality of reasoning. The quality of calculation is very good, but the quality of reasoning can be better. What I sometimes read about the supposed rational behaviour of consumers in economic theories is beyond belief. When biologists try to explain animal or human behaviour, I normally sigh and would love to see the old Roman and Greek philosophers come back to life. They would slaughter those people in a debate.

I must not understand that it is a subjective statement. It is very hard to explain for me, because first of all I am not writing in my native language and secondly, it is already difficult to explain in Dutch. I agree that you can not prove God using reason. That is the wrong way to prove. It has been tried for centuries and no one ever found an solid proof. But no one has ever found a proof of gravity or evolution using words only either. To proof something you need more than words. You need events and have the capability to perceive them. You need an open mind to accept what you see. For some things you do not need a very open mind (like gravity), but for others you do. Like the discovery of penicilline and the strange world of quantum mechanics. Different challenges for the mind require different mind sets. The will can really influence what you can see and what you are willing to see. That is what I read in the sentence 'it must be understood that this is a subjective statement'. 

Evolution is for me not a theory, it is a fact. Hence will I not agree with the statement that I should see it as a subjective statement, but I accept that other people see it as a subjective statement from their point of view. Likewise for my other fact.