[Event "CT  Class 3  #92"]
[Site "SchemingMind.com"]
[Date "2010.08.06"]
[Round "-"]
[White "tiggeronvrb"]
[Black "PeterLiberty"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "B21z"]
[WhiteCountry "SCO"]
[BlackCountry "USA"]
[WhiteElo "1826"]
[WhiteRD "70"]
[BlackElo "1484"]
[BlackRD "58"]
[GameID "256821"]

1. e4
{
tiggeronvrb: Hello, enjoy the games
}
1... c5 2. d4 cxd4 3. c3 dxc3 4. Nxc3 d6 5. Bc4 Nc6 6. Nf3 e6 7. O-O Be7 8. Qe2 Nf6 9. Rd1 e5 10. Bg5 Bg4
11. Rac1 O-O 12. h3 Bh5 13. Qe3 Bxf3 14. Qxf3 Nd4 15. Qe3 a6 16. f4 Nc6 17. a3 Rc8 18. Kh2
{
PeterLiberty: I'm curious.  Do you think the world has a purpose?  If so, what do you think it is?
}
18... Nh5 19. Bxe7
{
tiggeronvrb: Thats a pretty profound question to ask a stranger during a chess game! But since you asked... I'm from a Science background so answering from that point of view: Classical Science would say that everything (including our brains) is made of particles simply following the laws of physics. This suggests that we are inevitably moving towards a predetermined future. Not that we know what that is, but like a stone rolling down a mountain, if you could have exactly the same start conditions (same stone, speed etc) then it would always end up in the same place. I think it is unclear how the discovery of quantum mechanics affects this. Either it reintroduces genuine chance and the future is not determined or we simply do not yet understand fully the laws of physics at a tiny scale and the future again is determined, but we could not possibly have any knowledge of what that is. Can I ask why you wanted to know? Did you ask all your opponents this question?
}
{
PeterLiberty: I thank you for your honest answer.  I'm asking everyone out of curiosity as I said.  It's a philosophical and theological question--and every answer reveals a philosophy including your answer based on science.  You, by the way, have given the fullest, most thoughtful question I've gotten from the players I'm against whom I'm competing.  Which specific area of science is your speciality? Most of the others, by the way, offer essentially the same answer, but very few seem interested in why they that is what they think?  
}
{
PeterLiberty: Oh, I think I actually failed to answer your very fair question--why I wanted to know.  I'm a life long student of theology and philosophy.  Everyone is curious about questions of philosophy--what is real, what is truth, what is right and so forth. Some just adopt common ways of thinking about them and make that answer their own.  Others actually think about the validity of the common answer and their own.  
}
19... Qxe7 20. Nd5
{
tiggeronvrb: I am a high school Chemistry teacher. I have always enjoyed discussing such questions with interesting people who I met at university. I do appreciate that there is a big question believing in a scientifically based philosophy - what place does morality have in such a view of existance? So I have had to come up with my own answer to that.
}
{
PeterLiberty: Ah, now you have created for me another curiosity.  If random chance is the basis for existence, there doesn't seem to me to be any basis for morality.  So, since you assert that you have come up with your own answer to that, may I ask what your answer is?
}
20... Qd8
{
tiggeronvrb: Well I didnt actually say random chance. I think either that (1) every minute particle is simply following simple rules (not yet fully understood by humans) that may give the appearance chance simply due to its complexity; or (2) although the laws of physics apply to very simple systems when they are applied to very complex systems (eg a human brain) then there is indeed free will (or perhaps random chance) and the reasons for this may come from quantum mechanics.
}
{
tiggeronvrb: The answer to the morality question I came up with comes from combining moral realativism with what I have learned about thermodynamics. Without writing an essay I would summarise the idea as moral entropy. 
}
21. fxe5
{
PeterLiberty: Alright, I was responding to your long comment after move #19 in which you stated that quantum mechanics may introduce random chance into the equation or may not.  In either case, you call your solution, about which I remain curious, "moral entropy".  Does that mean that you think people in general were more moral in the past and that morality is "wearing out"?  I'm not sure I understand. Can you give me a few clues or examples, perhaps without bothering with the essay?  
}
21... Nxe5 22. Be2
{
tiggeronvrb: OK perhaps moral entropy is not quite the right title. I did a quick Google of the term and it would seem to be referring to what you suggested. I am suggesting that there is a constant pressure towards randomness (breakdown of society) which we over come with morality. Also that increases order in essential for society and to support large populations. Whatever is moral for a particular group at a particular time is whatever will maintain the greatest order (not  rigid dictatorship - perhaps contentment is an equally good word as order). I also think you can borrow ideas from thermodynamics when you consider a change in morality (or simply a change in behaviour) by considering the resistance to the change (and disorder a change might cause) versus the increased order/contentment achieved. Compare this to activation energy and ehthalpy change in thermodynamics. Unfortunately (and perhaps pertinently) this view has a necessary consequence - namely the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This states that entropy always increases. Thus the harder we try to create order in the world (to support a growing population etc) the more resources are consumed and sum total disorder is caused. Basically the consequences of bending the planet to our will is its eventual ruin.
}
{
tiggeronvrb: In short I am suggesting, as in moral realativism, that there is no fundamental good and evil (except perhaps our species surviving = good) and morality is dependant on the people involved, circumstance and time in history.
}
{
PeterLiberty: Your explanation appears inconsistent to me.  First, consider, if there is no fundamental good and evil, then why should the survival of any species including our own be considered good. That assessment does not come for your scientific approach.  It must come from another source.  I would suggest that the ability to make moral judgments of any kind come from but one source, God, who Himself defines what is good.  The closed system that is the universe of matter and energy operating under the laws of physics, does not allow for any kind of morality whatsoever.  Morality comes from another source whether we recognize it or not.  The second inconsistency is in linking morality to physical laws (of thermodynamics). While there may very well be some resemblance to "energy" transfers as in the laws of physics, with regard to morality, I defy you to quantify it.  It simply is not measurable because the laws do not apply.  To go further I must pose an alternative definition of morality.  Let's assume for the moment that the definition of good does indeed come from outside the world of matter and energy, that it comes from the Creator of matter and energy.  When He created this universe He created it the way it was supposed to be.  But He gave certain intelligent creatures, men and spirits volition as well, just as He has volition and could create the universe as He wished.  Now since He chose to create man as a volitional being, the man could chose voluntarily to disrupt the way the universe was designed to operate in some limited way.  Here is how I define morality within these suppositions.  Moral good is when people are behaving in the way they are designed to behave.  Moral evil is when they go off the reservation and set there own course.  I don't see morality operating in our world under the premises of the laws of physics. I see morality operating more randomly, as it would with 6 billion volitional units all functioning according to their own will.  Moral behavior is random, but morality itself is sharply and precisely defined by God Himself.  So this is not a moral relativism at all. The definition of what is moral good does not change, but its fulfillment in the ways of men is quite erratic.   
}
22... Rxc1 23. Rxc1 Qh4
{
tiggeronvrb: I think the reason my arguement appears inconsistent to you is that you believe in a god who cares about good and evil and whether our species survives. I am suggesting that if there is/was a creator then He created the laws which tell everything what it is and what is does and these laws apply today and will for all time (He doesnt fiddle with existence now). He doesnt care any more or less about what we perceive as good or evil than he cares that a ball rolls as it should or an atom of Uranium splits at a certain time. 
I believe in evolution and also that life is a consequence of the almost infinite possibilities in our amazing universe. Morality is an illusion which different forms of life adopt to greater or lesser extent (conciously or not) in order to survive. So I would say again this is relative to circumstance. Whenever anyone argues a moral code based on divinity there are always extreme situations which can be envisaged in which this code needs to be altered or even ignored. I am suggesting this is becaue it is a useful code in normal circumstances, but does not cover every eventuality purely because morality is relative. You would have to accept the agreed morality of the church has changed considerably over time and it will surely in the future. To me this is a recognition of relative morality.
In answer to your second point - I could not possibly quantify such moral changes, but this is due to the incridible complexity of the system, not because it would be impossible to do so. It would be easy to think up many examples of this idea in action (everything from revolutions to adapting a new traffic law to ordaning female ministers fits this idea to me). I would also say that while moral behaviour may appear random, again it is just that the system is incredibly complex. Each individual is making judgements based on their own perceived morality and circumstance. This is why what one person perceives as good seems evil to another. 
}
24. g3
{
PeterLiberty: You, my friend, introduced the idea that the one moral good might be the survival of humanity as possibly the one fundamental moral good.  With regard to that belief of yours, my belief in a God who cares about moral good or evil is irrelevant.  The point is that your belief is inconsistent, not mine, because your "naturalistic" view of the world does not allow for even that fundamental moral rule.  The only possible argument that I could see someone making from within your metaphysical framework is that "survival of the fittest" be expanded to "survival of the species".  This simply does not match even my empirical reality let alone my rational reality (which I define as reasoning from the premise that "God exists").  My empirical reality is that the human species, by far the most intelligent of all known corporeal life, is by far the most brutal in self-destructive behaviors! Now, I am uncertain with regard to your belief in God, and that may be the source of some of our confusion.  The above conclusion is a result of an assumption that you believe the complexity of the universe occurred naturally with no involvement at all.  Now in your latest argument you concede that possibly there is a God who created the laws (I would assume this includes moral laws) that govern how the universe works, but that he does not fiddle with it now.  This is a great concession, but it does not strengthen your argument. It strengthens mine. I agree one hundred percent that God set the laws in place that govern the universe, and I include laws of moral behavior as well, and those laws are consistent with His character and have their source in Him alone.  Now here's a conundrum.  Why would He create something He doesn't care about.  Do you do that?  Do you build a bird house and not care about it?  Do you do anything with no care at all? Buy a car? Build a house? Go to the bank? Get married? Start a family? Go to the doctor? Why would God do anything without a purpose? The fact that moral behavior is relative, that moral behavior becomes inconsistent in changing circumstances, that the church may try changing its rules from time to time by ordaining female ministers, e. g., is because our volition allows us to disrupt God's design, unwittingly, perhaps, but often willfully, because we simply don't like things according to His rules.  Complexity may enter in--but from what source does that complexity come? It doesn't come from random chance in a meaningless world that derives all its direction from a "survival of the fittest" premise which does not itself match empirical reality. You, my friend, are struggling, unsuccessfully it appears to me, to escape God, but you cannot do so.  There is no other source for the physical laws of the universe.  They did not just happen.  There is no other source for complexity. It could not just happen.  There is no other source for any morality, any sense of right and wrong, it did not just happen.  He keeps intruding in our discussion, and not just by me, the one who believes in Him with all my heart, but also by you, who doubt His existence.  Does He care?  Yes, I believe He does.  Does He care that we keep exploring His physical laws seeking understanding and coming up with one theory after another, chaos theory, string theory, M-theory, theory of relativity, quantum theory, atomic theory, theory of evolution, theory of gravity, etc., etc., etc. ad infinitum, without any final conclusions that exclude Him? Yes, and I think He's chuckling about it.  Here we are, all high and mighty, trying to find away to pretend He doesn't exist, and everything we discover points directly at Him.  He cares and we cannot escape it. He has permeated our entire argument from beginning to end, yours very reluctantly and mine willingly, because I've accepted a reality you still apparently seek to reject.         
}
24... Qxg3+ 25. Qxg3 Nxg3 26. Kxg3
{
tiggeronvrb: Remember that I am arguing that morality is a human construct. I do not believe therefore that moral laws are set at the beginning of the universe (and indeed are changing all the time). I am saying there is no fundamental good and evil. This is entirely consistent with a naturalistic view of the universe. We have invented these terms and developed a set of rules which serve us. These rules help us to deal with living in a universe which is governed by certain rules. You suggest that God's vision for the universe is well defined. I'm sure if I asked you what that was it would be different than if I asked a similar person 200 years ago and different again 200 years in the future. Each may have a core similar message as human nature doesnt change that fast, but would have differences based on history, culture and circumstance. Each of you would argue their view is closest to God's vision. In your answer you a seem perturbed by the suggestion that the creator doesnt have a special relationship with us. I believe that any creator or event created all matter and energy and the rules which govern it. It/He did not create us directly and in the history of the universe we are really a tiny, almost infintescimally small part. I accept that science does not yet hold all the answers, but I do believe that every single discovery, research and philosophical debate is gradually giving us more information about the laws which govern our universe. The complexity issue seems to bother you. I am saying that just because it is practically impossible to calculate something, it does not mean that philosohpically it is possible to do so. I am suggesting that if a machine existed to look at the physical and energic state of all the parts of each brain you could predict its response to a moral question. Extrapolate this to a population and you would see moral relativity in action. It doesnt matter that I can't quantify it, just that it would be possible to do so. Finally to my believe in God. I do not believe in God, but as a scientist I accept that, at least at the moment, science can answer very well questions about what the universe is and how it works, but not why it was created. Therefore there could be something which created the universe, if you want to call it 'God' fine. I think such a creator is very different from a christian view of God in the following ways: We were not created in his image, we are not the cartakers of the world, we do not have a special relationship with him over other animals (or even other matter), He is not the source of morality, praying to Him is meaningless. 
}
26... f5
{
PeterLiberty: Well, we have reached an impasse--for the moment. First, I have not forgotten that you are arguing that morality is a human construct.  What I am curious about is why, then, you keep bringing Him into the argument. Note this quotation by way of example:  You said, "I believe that any creator or event created all matter and energy and the rules which govern it. It/He did not create us directly and in the history of the universe we are really a tiny, almost infintescimally small part. I accept that science does not yet hold all the answers, but I do believe that every single discovery, research and philosophical debate is gradually giving us more information about the laws which govern our universe." All I have said is that you seem unable to clear the possibility of a Creator from your equation.  He lives rent free in your head and you are stuck with Him. I am simply raising the bar a bit and asking you why you cannot just drop Him from the equation?  Why don't you just toss Him out of His lodgings in your brain and forget about Him? Second, I thought I made it clear that the human perspective is irrelevant with regard to God's standards of right and wrong. So, then, of what significance is it that people 200 years ago, now, and 200 years in the future in different cultural circumstances do not see things the same way? Absolutely none.  When you argue that humans change in their vision of the universe, we cannot extrapolate from that fact a notion that God changes in His vision of the universe. Third, I am not "perturbed by the suggestion that the creator doesn't have a special relationship with us." I'm simply trying to understand why you think the possibility that He might indeed have a relationship with us is incomprehensible. It appears to me that it is not incomprehensible to you because you then said, "I believe that any creator or event created all matter and energy and the rules which govern it." So, He does have a relationship with us then--He established the "rules" that govern us and everything around us.  The only thing that remains is for you to embrace the idea of God that you seem completely unable to extract from your brain.  That is an action which, at present, you seem determined not to do. Why not? That's a question for you to answer not me.  I've answered it for myself.  Fourth, the "complexity" issue is not a problem for me. Since I believe that God is infinitely superior to me I would be surprised if anything He does is not complex.  Most people are complex and possess an infinitely unique set of characteristics. It would be foolish of me to think that our Creator is "simple".  I dwell on the topic not because it is a problem for me, but I want to understand why it is not a problem for you. The mathematician David Berlinski, an agnostic Jew, while he does not embrace the concept of God is extremely cynical of evolution because it is mathematically irrational.  That doesn't seem to disturb you.  I'm content with a complex God creating a complex world. What drives you, even though He seems to dwell rent free in your head, to resist the idea that He might actually have something significant to do with the complexity of the world?
}
27. Ne7+
{
tiggeronvrb: I think it is extremely probable that God does not exist. I think it is almost certain that he is not remotely like any human concept of him if he does exist. He merely enters the arguement as useful idea for a creator. If I was having the same debate with a scientist I would never have mentioned him. It would be unreasonable to have this discussion without mentioning him as you hold this as the centre of your philosophy.  I cannot prove there is no God, but this is no reason to believe in him. This is a consequence of the mind set of a scientist - evaluating and re-evaluating ideas while gradually improving your philosophy. The fact that I cant disprove god doesnt affect the way I live my life any more or less than the fact I cant prove fermat's last theorem or prove the sun will rise tomorrow. Herein lies the difference between philosophy and faith.
Regarding 'relationship' - you could argue that I have a relationship with every air particle I have moved in my life, atom which has passed through my body and every person I have even glanced at. In the same you could argue the way the laws which govern us affect us means that God has a relationship with us. I feel this is not what you mean by a relationship. The Christian idea of this relationship is that this is a two way thing - that through prayer or otherwise you can have a supernatural influence on the future or at least communicate in some way with the creator of the universe. I am suggesting that if there is a God then that is a one way relationship - he set the rules and neither we nor him can break them now and the idea that we could communicate with him seems absurd.

I dont believe complexity is any evidence for God. Everything I have learned suggests to me life is entirely compatable with an almost infinite universe. I understand a good deal about how atoms combine to make molceules, molecules cells and cells living things. I have no problem with any of these stages and can see how they could plausibly occur in the creation of life. I have no need for an external creator in my philosophy.
}
{
PeterLiberty: Can you explain to me why so much of what you assume about God is actually revealed in the Scripture you do not believe? For example, you say He is not like any human  concept of Him if He does exist.  Scripture teaches that we cannot understand Him. You say if there is a God then any relationship with Him is a one way relationship.  Scripture teaches that also, but it also teaches that God wants us to have a relationship with Him so He made it possible for us--but it is not a necessity.  Scripture teaches that we have nothing to offer Him that He needs. Now, I have rechecked our communications and it seems I introduced God into the conversation, but I find it interesting that, even though you say you have no need of him in your philosophy and even though you cannot prove He exists and even though you think it's extremely doubtful that He does exist, He still seems to be enough on your mind that you can tell me what you believe He's like, and be Scripturally correct in your description in many particulars. By the way, isn't your denial that God exists a matter of faith--since you can't prove that He does not exist?  I rather doubt that you or other scientists can prove a great deal of what you believe science teaches, so wouldn't that make your belief in science a matter of faith? Why is your belief that science will eventually come up with the answers you do not now know any less a matter of faith for you, than my belief that I will someday meet and know God face to face is a matter of faith for me? Isn't it a matter of faith in what we cannot see for both of us?  
}
27... Kh8 28. exf5 h6 29. Ng6+
{
tiggeronvrb: You are correct that there are some things which I believe, but cannot prove. These however fall into two categories. (Leaving aside for the sake of this discussion whether you can truly prove anything except that you exist). There are those which I consider provable, which may have been proven by others already and if I was so inclined I could look up a paper or repeat an experiment to prove it for my self. I, in these cases, am also accepting the review and scrutiny of experts as assurance it has been proven (again I am comfortable with the fact that if I so chose I could study an area and repeat experiemtns etc). This first class of beliefs influence my philosphical view of the world.
The second class of beliefs, such as that God does not exist are of course beliefs in a more faith like sense. I can offer no proof either way so, critically, these beliefs do not impact on my philosophy. I was attempting to show in my last comment that if God exists as I described him then the universe would be completely indistinguishable from if he did not. (I should have made this clear earlier, our discussion has certainly helped to crystalise my philosophy) . In this way he does not impact upon my philosphy. Such questions which Science does not yet have an answer to are of course of interest and enjoyment to me, but they do not have an impact on my view of the universe. 
I have no more than a general cultural knowledge of the scriptures. I would suggest that if parts of my philosophy agree with it, then this is because whatever philosophy a person is biased by, if they have truely tried to base their thoughts on the world as it appears to them, then there will of course be great overlaps. Also, whether you believe the scripture is the word of God or not, it was written by men. You suggest all men are fallible and also that "the human perspective is irrelevant with regard to God's standards of right and wrong." I presume you apply this reasoning to the scriptures as well. I would contest that the scripture has no more to say about the nature of the universe than you or I.
}
{
PeterLiberty: First, with regard to your first class of cases--those that have been empirically verified--it is my contention that empirically verifiable experiments can not possibly in any way help us with regard to your second class of beliefs. Your second class of beliefs is, as you say, a matter of faith.  As to whether or not the universe as we know it would be exactly the same whether God exists or not is a matter of pure conjecture--for both of us.  I do  believe God does exist. And, because He exists, the universe exists.  It is my belief that the universe could not exist without Him.  You believe that the universe exists as it is--whether God exists or not, and choose to believe He does not exist.  Now, it would certainly seem, since the universe is so precisely ordered in order to exist, that it must be so.  So the logical extension of your argument is that it must have come into being as it is by natural means because this is the only way it could exist.  I chose to reject that argument, because it seems clear to me that God set the rules in place by which the whole universe hangs together.  So we are both stuck with faith--the only question is:  Which faith is justifiable?  I will lose nothing if I am wrong--I will simply pass into oblivion and it will all be over, as your position suggests.  But, you on the other hand, if you are wrong, will be standing before God someday attempting to explain yourself.  It might be wise to examin whether one's faith makes sense in such a case.  Now, with regard to Scriptures we have a similar situation.  You believe that the closeness of your beliefs to Scriptural teaching is because of cultural training, if I understand you correctly. I believe that cultural training may play a part--but not the whole, because peoples all around the world have a sense of moral rightness whether they have any connection with western Christian culture or not.  And that moral rightness matches up with a great deal of Scriptural teaching also.
}
29... Nxg6 30. fxg6 Rd8
{
tiggeronvrb: Well its been a busy week - not much time for philosophy, now where were we....?
}
31. Rc7
{
tiggeronvrb: I agree with much of what you said. With regard to what we lose if we are wrong etc. I do not have to spend any time attempting to communicate with a God nor worshipping him and as far as the Christian faith goes I could just wait till I was 80 and repent profusely - job done into heaven, if I believed it was necessary. 
People all around the world of course have a similar sense of right and wrong, although there are notable differences. Our beliefs differ in the source of that commonality. Your earlier assertions interest me in this respect. As I understand it: You countered my arguement that christians would have different views of morality based on their circumstance, culture and time in history with the view that "the human perspective is irrelevant with regard to God's standards of right and wrong." and humans are simply fallible - that we break his rule due to our selfishness. This all suggests that no human is ever going to be moral and indeed casts doubt into wether morality actually exists (Using the arguement that if no human has knowledge of something - does it exist, or does it matter if it exists or not.) This seems to be a very strange moral code for one to live their life by. Is it your belief that merely trying to follow God's vision, even though you admit you could not possibly understandd what it is, is the route to morality and indded to God?
}
{
PeterLiberty: What my belief is is that right is what God declares to be right and what He declares to be right is consistent with His character. He is the sum and substance of righteousness in all He say and all He does.  What I mean by "the human perspective is irrelevant" is not that the human perspective is never in any way correct or valid or of value, but that it is only relevant when it correlates exactly with righteousness as it is defined by God.  Therefore, what I mean is that God's definition of righteousness is relevant.  The human definition standing on its own is irrelevant.  The reason that man cannot get it "right" on his own is that he has corrupted himself and his corruption of himself leads him often to ignore God as the source and definition of righteousness, and use some other "human" standard which always falls short of God's standard.  So the duty of man is to "glorify God and enjoy Him forever" as the source of every good and perfect blessing we enjoy, including any sense of genuine righteousness of which we are aware.  I don't conflate righteousness with morality.  Morality is limited to human interactions with one another and they are a subset of righteousness, which is everything that is right in our relationship with God, our fellowman and all aspects of Creation, both within the context of matter and energy and in the spiritual realm that is independent of that limited context.   
}
31... Rb8 32. Rd7 Re8 33. Rxd6 Kg8 34. Bc4+ Kf8 35. Kf3 Ke7 36. Re6+ Kd8 37. Rxe8+ Kxe8 38. b4 Ke7 39. Kf4 Kf6 40. Bd3 b5
41. h4 h5 42. Bf5 Ke7 43. Ke5 Kf8 44. Kd6 Ke8 45. Bc8
{
tiggeronvrb: Thanks for the game and the very enjoyable debate. 
}
{
Game Over: Well done and congratulations.
}
1-0

