Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

KCA and others dont prove God

Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:08:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

If it were true, we won't be allowed to seek it out either way because atheists can believe intelligent beings evolved but anyone greater than us is squashed. It might insinuate Intelligent design....
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:10:52 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

Even if one mindlessly dismisses KCA as not proof, this sure is...:
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:22:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:11:16 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
http://www.debate.org...

scanned through. no evidence for the existence of god is given in the debate
moreover, Jesus did not fullfill a single prophecy, let alone 100 of them. They all are either mistranslation or a verse taken out of context. some examples:

1. Messiah was to be born in Bettleham: christians claim it by pointinb to Micah 5:2, but Micah 5:2 in no way prophecies it. In micah 5:2 the tribe is referred to, a leader was to come from that tribe, not from a town named bettleham.

2. virgin birth: xtians point to Isaiah 7:14 as Matthew quoted but Isaiah 7:14 is 1) about a sign that was to be given for the military crisis Ahaz and HoD were under. 2) Isaiah talks about an almah and in hebrew he dies not say "he shall be called imanuel",Isaiah says "you" in a feminine case, you shall name him Immanuel which means at the time isaiah was talking the woman was in front of him and that woman was to give birth to the son.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:24:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:08:57 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

If it were true, we won't be allowed to seek it out either way because atheists can believe intelligent beings evolved but anyone greater than us is squashed. It might insinuate Intelligent design....
no, you are allowed as far as I know. who prohibited it?
and in atheism there is no such thing like "greater than us is swuashed"
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:27:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:24:50 PM, Artur wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:08:57 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

If it were true, we won't be allowed to seek it out either way because atheists can believe intelligent beings evolved but anyone greater than us is squashed. It might insinuate Intelligent design....
no, you are allowed as far as I know. who prohibited it?
and in atheism there is no such thing like "greater than us is swuashed"

Sure there is. The militant atheists on ddo aren't here to promote any form of ID.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:32:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:10:52 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

Even if one mindlessly dismisses KCA as not proof, this sure is...:
KCA is to be dismissed since what can be assetted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

KCa is based on assumptions rather than evidence. It assumes "the creator of the universe has to be uncaused, has to be personel" and some others.

it just assumes creator universe is uncaused and personel, what if universe was caused by an event? what if universe were caused by a grpup?

what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed withoit evidence.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 5:40:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:32:08 PM, Artur wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:10:52 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

Even if one mindlessly dismisses KCA as not proof, this sure is...:
KCA is to be dismissed since what can be assetted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

KCa is based on assumptions rather than evidence. It assumes "the creator of the universe has to be uncaused, has to be personel" and some others.

it just assumes creator universe is uncaused and personel, what if universe was caused by an event? what if universe were caused by a grpup?

what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed withoit evidence.

There is evidence. That's why I provided you a link. Atheists don't want the evidence because thst is not why they are here. They are here to destroy, attack, and spread hopelesness.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 6:05:55 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

First, I think it's important to recognize the difference between evidence, proof, and a reasonable argument. These are not the same things. Also, it's important to understand the difference between believing in the "existence of God", and the actual existence of God. It may be reasonable to believe in the existence of God even though one cannot prove that God actually exists. There may be evidence to support the belief that God exists, but still no proof that God actually exists. And lastly, what one person will accept as evidence (or proof) may not be the same as what another person will accept as evidence, especially when people are biased for or against the concept that the evidence tends to support. And of course, we don't all hold to the same concept of what "God" and/or existence even means. So that we will need to find the common ground on these definitions before we could hope to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate on the subject.

Which is why so little meaningful discussion or debate ever happens on these boards.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 6:34:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 6:05:55 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

First, I think it's important to recognize the difference between evidence, proof, and a reasonable argument. These are not the same things. Also, it's important to understand the difference between believing in the "existence of God", and the actual existence of God. It may be reasonable to believe in the existence of God even though one cannot prove that God actually exists. There may be evidence to support the belief that God exists, but still no proof that God actually exists. And lastly, what one person will accept as evidence (or proof) may not be the same as what another person will accept as evidence, especially when people are biased for or against the concept that the evidence tends to support. And of course, we don't all hold to the same concept of what "God" and/or existence even means. So that we will need to find the common ground on these definitions before we could hope to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate on the subject.

Which is why so little meaningful discussion or debate ever happens on these boards.

I agree the definitions are a problem. I find many theists use arguments for a god but those arguments could only apply to a deist god. They are unable to make the jump from their argument for the existence of a deist intelligent consciousness and a jealous, angry, vengeful god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans and cares deeply what people do behind closed bedroom doors.

How does a theist bridge that gap?
Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 6:55:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 5:40:26 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:32:08 PM, Artur wrote:
At 7/25/2016 5:10:52 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

Even if one mindlessly dismisses KCA as not proof, this sure is...:
KCA is to be dismissed since what can be assetted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

KCa is based on assumptions rather than evidence. It assumes "the creator of the universe has to be uncaused, has to be personel" and some others.

it just assumes creator universe is uncaused and personel, what if universe was caused by an event? what if universe were caused by a grpup?

what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed withoit evidence.

There is evidence.
share please?
That's why I provided you a link.
you were implying that the evidence was there? can you quote your evidence here so that we see it, I did not find any.
Atheists don't want the evidence because thst is not why they are here.
as of me, yes, I do not want just like you do not want evidence for a unicorn or for a person whose name is hdjsndudnejsjwnsianssiansj
They are here to destroy, attack, and spread hopelesness.
if the religious do not attack, atheists will not care whether you exist, let alone your god, religious people attacked and spread hopelesness, that is why stheists needed to detroy your 'intelligence'.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 7:28:51 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 6:34:18 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/25/2016 6:05:55 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

First, I think it's important to recognize the difference between evidence, proof, and a reasonable argument. These are not the same things. Also, it's important to understand the difference between believing in the "existence of God", and the actual existence of God. It may be reasonable to believe in the existence of God even though one cannot prove that God actually exists. There may be evidence to support the belief that God exists, but still no proof that God actually exists. And lastly, what one person will accept as evidence (or proof) may not be the same as what another person will accept as evidence, especially when people are biased for or against the concept that the evidence tends to support. And of course, we don't all hold to the same concept of what "God" and/or existence even means. So that we will need to find the common ground on these definitions before we could hope to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate on the subject.

Which is why so little meaningful discussion or debate ever happens on these boards.

I agree the definitions are a problem. I find many theists use arguments for a god but those arguments could only apply to a deist god. They are unable to make the jump from their argument for the existence of a deist intelligent consciousness and a jealous, angry, vengeful god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans and cares deeply what people do behind closed bedroom doors.

How does a theist bridge that gap?

The only way I know of would be to try and employ the language they use, to speak to them in a way that they can understand.

Years ago there was a TV preacher in Chicago that I somehow stumbled upon and began to watch. He was of the ilk that practiced the casting out of demons, and he used the very bizarre and archaic language common to folks who live on that very superstitious level of intellectual cognition.

He was fascinating to watch, because he was very good at what he did. Which was to preach spiritual healing via the methodology of 'casting out demons'. He really had that arcane religious language down pat!

But as I listened to him preach, I also began to realize that what we was advocating as the practice of "casting out demons" was actually very sensible, practical advice for dealing with the problems that were being referred to as "demon spirits". These "demon spirits" were really the "spirit of alcohol and drug addiction", or the "spirit of verbal or physical domestic abuse", or the "spirit of sexual promiscuity", and so on. Real problems that the poor and uneducated people in his area of the city were facing. And he was giving them real and practical advice using the "church" language that they understood. And he was doing it for free.

I eventually came to respect that preacher and his ministry, greatly, because he was doing what no one else was able or willing to do. He was helping the poor and ignorant and sick folks on the south side of Chicago, on their level. Instead of just blaming them and ignoring them because they are too poor and ignorant and sick to be helped by expensive modern psychologists and politician's social programs.
Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2016 11:57:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 6:05:55 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

First, I think it's important to recognize the difference between evidence, proof, and a reasonable argument. These are not the same things.
right, u r right.
Also, it's important to understand the difference between believing in the "existence of God", and the actual existence of God. It may be reasonable to believe in the existence of God even though one cannot prove that God actually exists. There may be evidence to support the belief that God exists, but still no proof that God actually exists.
1. It would be good if theists accept it. 2. majority if not all of the 'Sentences' which theists think to be evidence to support the belief that god exists is like this:
Jake is dead, it has been killed by somebody. Police comes and arrests you, their evidence is: "everyone that is killed is killed by somebody. you are somebody, so you have killed him"
let it be KCA, let it be moral arguement, let it be compatibility arguement and e.t.c all are like that. btw, Orator Craig has a different arguement that is based on the most common mythology, that arguement is "the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth", even his existence is not an established fact, let alone his resurrection
And lastly, what one person will accept as evidence (or proof) may not be the same as what another person will accept as evidence, especially when people are biased for or against the concept that the evidence tends to support. And of course, we don't all hold to the same concept of what "God" and/or existence even means. So that we will need to find the common ground on these definitions before we could hope to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate on the subject.
let us use scientific evidences, if someone does not accept it, he/she is wrong.
Which is why so little meaningful discussion or debate ever happens on these boards.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
PureX
Posts: 1,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2016 1:08:09 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/25/2016 11:57:09 PM, Artur wrote:
At 7/25/2016 6:05:55 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

First, I think it's important to recognize the difference between evidence, proof, and a reasonable argument. These are not the same things.
right, u r right.
Also, it's important to understand the difference between believing in the "existence of God", and the actual existence of God. It may be reasonable to believe in the existence of God even though one cannot prove that God actually exists. There may be evidence to support the belief that God exists, but still no proof that God actually exists.
1. It would be good if theists accept it. 2. majority if not all of the 'Sentences' which theists think to be evidence to support the belief that god exists is like this:
Jake is dead, it has been killed by somebody. Police comes and arrests you, their evidence is: "everyone that is killed is killed by somebody. you are somebody, so you have killed him"
let it be KCA, let it be moral arguement, let it be compatibility arguement and e.t.c all are like that. btw, Orator Craig has a different arguement that is based on the most common mythology, that arguement is "the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth", even his existence is not an established fact, let alone his resurrection

Well, that's not really true. The proposal goes more like this: existence as we experience and understand it is being expressed as an ongoing succession of actions and reactions (cause and effect) that can conceivably be traced back to one primary act; referred to as the "big bang". Which logically, then, begs the question, what is the origin of that first action? It's a legitimate question. So much so that scientists are devoting a great deal of time and energy trying to find the answer.

And by a general definition of the word, whatever that cause is, could be called "God". Because it would be that which creates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists as we know it.

And lastly, what one person will accept as evidence (or proof) may not be the same as what another person will accept as evidence, especially when people are biased for or against the concept that the evidence tends to support. And of course, we don't all hold to the same concept of what "God" and/or existence even means. So that we will need to find the common ground on these definitions before we could hope to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate on the subject.
let us use scientific evidences, if someone does not accept it, he/she is wrong.

Why? The scientific method is fine for resolving questions about how physical existence functions, but it's completely useless at establishing the meaning and value of our experience of existing. It's like trying to use a ruler to measure the experience of a sunset. How sick would we humans become if we were to ignore and deny the validity of our experience of a sunset just because we couldn't measure it with our ruler? We'd be denying and ignoring the most important aspects of our lives: those aspects that give us meaning and value.

The existence of "God" is not a physical question. It's a philosophical question. Science is not the tool for exploring that realm.
Artur
Posts: 721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2016 12:32:41 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/26/2016 1:08:09 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2016 11:57:09 PM, Artur wrote:
At 7/25/2016 6:05:55 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/25/2016 4:43:58 PM, Artur wrote:
they all are assumption. what if universe was caused by a group of beings that lives outside our unicerse and who are independant on any law we can think of? It is as possible as any god.

or moral arguement: for the sake of arguement, let me agree objective morality exists. does it mean god set it? what if there is a specie who formed the universe and put objective morality into the minds of people? it too is as possible as God assumption.

what arguement do you have for the existence of God?

First, I think it's important to recognize the difference between evidence, proof, and a reasonable argument. These are not the same things.
right, u r right.
Also, it's important to understand the difference between believing in the "existence of God", and the actual existence of God. It may be reasonable to believe in the existence of God even though one cannot prove that God actually exists. There may be evidence to support the belief that God exists, but still no proof that God actually exists.
1. It would be good if theists accept it. 2. majority if not all of the 'Sentences' which theists think to be evidence to support the belief that god exists is like this:
Jake is dead, it has been killed by somebody. Police comes and arrests you, their evidence is: "everyone that is killed is killed by somebody. you are somebody, so you have killed him"
let it be KCA, let it be moral arguement, let it be compatibility arguement and e.t.c all are like that. btw, Orator Craig has a different arguement that is based on the most common mythology, that arguement is "the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth", even his existence is not an established fact, let alone his resurrection

Well, that's not really true.
that is really true. KCA does not have difference from that as we will see.
The proposal goes more like this: existence as we experience and understand it is being expressed as an ongoing succession of actions and reactions (cause and effect) that can conceivably be traced back to one primary act; referred to as the "big bang".
the state of being killed goes back to one primary act: someone killing you
Which logically, then, begs the question, what is the origin of that first action?
so, who was the origin of that killing?
It's a legitimate question.
right
So much so that scientists are devoting a great deal of time and energy trying to find the answer.
but the religious do not, they just assume God is just like in my example the police assumes you are just because you are one of possibilities.
And by a general definition of the word, whatever that cause is, could be called "God".
that is the problem because that might be something other than God, god is just one possibility just like you are being one possibility of "who killed Jake?"
Because it would be that which creates, sustains, and gives purpose to all that exists as we know it.
no, it may be totally different thing as well. what if there is a system that includes our universe and our universe was result of the events that happened in that system which are totally independent from the laws of the universe? it too is possible
what if there is a specie outside the universe and one member of them have created our universe, what if we are his/her/its PHD thesis?
what if the computer simulation hypothesis is true? we may be just a computer simulation, it too is possible.
one more possibility is we just exist in someone else's mind.
as you see, there are many possibilities other than what the religious think God is just like there may be many possibilities for the question "who killed Jake"
And lastly, what one person will accept as evidence (or proof) may not be the same as what another person will accept as evidence, especially when people are biased for or against the concept that the evidence tends to support. And of course, we don't all hold to the same concept of what "God" and/or existence even means. So that we will need to find the common ground on these definitions before we could hope to have any sort of meaningful discussion or debate on the subject.
let us use scientific evidences, if someone does not accept it, he/she is wrong.

Why? The scientific method is fine for resolving questions about how physical existence functions, but it's completely useless at establishing the meaning and value of our experience of existing.
the scientific method is arguably the best one we rely upon, if the religious can not prove the existence of his so called god, then no point in taking him seriously. in order to prove god exists, no one needs to establish the meaning and the value of your existence.
It's like trying to use a ruler to measure the experience of a sunset. How sick would we humans become if we were to ignore and deny the validity of our experience of a sunset just because we couldn't measure it with our ruler? We'd be denying and ignoring the most important aspects of our lives: those aspects that give us meaning and value.
so, what you are saying here is in order the religious to prove the existence of his god, he must first find a method to prove it.
The existence of "God" is not a physical question. It's a philosophical question. Science is not the tool for exploring that realm.
try in any way, let it be scientific, let it be philosophical and we will see whether that arguement proves god or not. so, what arguement can someone offer?
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer