Atheist's 3 Objections to Christianity ANSWERED by Frank Turek

[daboom1]

I don't start a lot of threads but this is a good one :tu

2HKR1cmEgTI

[spurraider21]

:lmao

[benefactor]

:lmao
:lmao

[Blake]

:lmao


:lmao

:lmao

[Spurminator]

I don't start a lot of threads but this is a good one :tu

Counterpoint: It's not.

[SnakeBoy]

That little wokester got so thoroughly destroyed libs don't want to talk about it :lol

[daboom1]

That little wokester got so thoroughly destroyed libs don't want to talk about it :lol

They posted emojis not 5 minutes after I posted. They didn't even watch it.

[pgardn]

Turek does not believe evolution occurs.
He believes species do change over time, but not enough that speciation actually occurs.
The change is species is also designed by a designer. And he thinks this IS science. Its not. No creating designers in science. You simply say. "I dont know". Which is very difficult for Christians and why they get themselves into trouble is so many discussions. His takes on the universe are all basically correct except again he states there must be a designer. Thats fine, but its not science. Which does not mean he is wrong. But has jumped over to religion and philosophy. So why go into this huge scientific presentation and then bail out? They are different pursuits?


So it was best when he debated Christopher Hitchens that he stayed on the morality thing. He got slaughtered on the creation evolution stuff.

Take a read below.
Chris: Get back to the board and discuss what in it upholds "your" side of the morality issue.
It deals with the morality thing.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170441

I wish we all could have a little guy in the corner looking up at the debate nodding knowingly and "uhmmmmmming" as in "yes indeed."
Snake you to have a go at it as well. Help your brother.

uhmmmmmmm....

[pgardn]

Now lets watch Chris bail when he accuses others of doing so with emojis.
The same guy who argues in the Ukraine discussion with a picture of Putin and thumbs up? :nope Blind Hypocrite

[Ef-man]

Turek does not believe evolution occurs.
He believes species do change over time, but not enough that speciation actually occurs.
The change is species is also designed by a designer. And he thinks this IS science. Its not. No creating designers in science. You simply say. "I dont know". Which is very difficult for Christians and why they get themselves into trouble is so many discussions. His takes on the universe are all basically correct except again he states there must be a designer. Thats fine, but its not science. Which does not mean he is wrong. But has jumped over to religion and philosophy. So why go into this huge scientific presentation and then bail out? They are different pursuits?


So it was best when he debated Christopher Hitchens that he stayed on the morality thing. He got slaughtered on the creation evolution stuff.

Take a read below.
Chris: Get back to the board and discuss what in it upholds "your" side of the morality issue.
It deals with the morality thing.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.170441

I wish we all could have a little guy in the corner looking up at the debate nodding knowingly and "uhmmmmmming" as in "yes indeed."
Snake you to have a go at it as well. Help your brother.

uhmmmmmmm....

:lmao :lmao
Qchrisy finds a way to pick the ignorant fucks.

[Blake]

They posted emojis not 5 minutes after I posted. They didn't even watch it.

Lol :cry they didn't watch muh YouTube :cry

[ElNono]

:lmao


:lmao

:lmao

[daboom1]

The change is species is also designed by a designer. And he thinks this IS science. Its not. No creating designers in science. You simply say. "I dont know". Which is very difficult for Christians and why they get themselves into trouble is so many discussions. His takes on the universe are all basically correct except again he states there must be a designer. Thats fine, but its not science. Which does not mean he is wrong. But has jumped over to religion and philosophy. So why go into this huge scientific presentation and then bail out? They are different pursuits?

Can someone translate?

[Blake]

Can someone translate?

Basically "intelligent design" is not science.

[pgardn]

Can someone translate?

Bottom line:

The guy gets wacked when he introduces a designer fkn dumbass.

Next: Read the article I put up on his first discussion about morality. You know, the first question the kid asked in the video you put up and YOU watched so closely. The article I put up actually has elements in it in which the writer agrees and disagrees with the video YOU WATCHED SO CLOSELY.

So, point out these elements of argument to the board.
You won’t, because YOU don’t really understand wtf YOU put up.

[pgardn]

Now lets watch Chris bail when he accuses others of doing so with emojis.
The same guy who argues in the Ukraine discussion with a picture of Putin and thumbs up? :nope Blind Hypocrite

Now do you understand this?
Do you know what hypocrisy is?

Dumbass…

[SpursforSix]

My best guess is that we're not capable of understanding the universe and how it came into existence. Just like you'll never be able to teach a dog calculus. As humans, we think we're the smartest beings in the world and capable of "getting it" as long as it's explained properly. I don't know if that's the case. The two biggest questions I have are 1) what's the beginning? And as a human, my next question is, "well what was before that?". Then 2) where's the end of the universe? For both questions, I don't think science can fully explain either to me. And I think it's because we don't have the ability to process it.

[Blake]

My best guess is that we're not capable of understanding the universe and how it came into existence. Just like you'll never be able to teach a dog calculus. As humans, we think we're the smartest beings in the world and capable of "getting it" as long as it's explained properly. I don't know if that's the case. The two biggest questions I have are 1) what's the beginning? And as a human, my next question is, "well what was before that?". Then 2) where's the end of the universe? For both questions, I don't think science can fully explain either to me. And I think it's because we don't have the ability to process it.

I think we can safely rule out Bible God being the creator.

[SpursforSix]

I think we can safely rule out Bible God being the creator.

Yeah...that wasn't my point. I'm with you there. I just don't think we can rule out something out there being smarter than we are.

[Blake]

Yeah...that wasn't my point. I'm with you there. I just don't think we can rule out something out there being smarter than we are.

If someone designed life on this planet they either suck at it or just messing around with it.

And then going off of your question of "what was before that?" then you'd ask ", who created the designer of this planet?

[spurraider21]

My best guess is that we're not capable of understanding the universe and how it came into existence. Just like you'll never be able to teach a dog calculus. As humans, we think we're the smartest beings in the world and capable of "getting it" as long as it's explained properly. I don't know if that's the case. The two biggest questions I have are 1) what's the beginning? And as a human, my next question is, "well what was before that?". Then 2) where's the end of the universe? For both questions, I don't think science can fully explain either to me. And I think it's because we don't have the ability to process it.
im pretty sure we have solid estimates about the size of the universe (in response to your question of where's the end). its with that information (along with rates of expansion, etc) we were able to work backwards and get a timeline on the big bang

[SpursforSix]

If someone designed life on this planet they either suck at it or just messing around with it.

And then going off of your question of "what was before that?" then you'd ask ", who created the designer of this planet?

I don't know if it's "someone" or "something" or just some handful of equations that governs everything. And yes...I'd continually ask, "well what was before that?".
Do you have the capability to grasp something starting from nothing? Or do you just accept it?

[SpursforSix]

im pretty sure we have solid estimates about the size of the universe (in response to your question of where's the end). its with that information (along with rates of expansion, etc) we were able to work backwards and get a timeline on the big bang

So what was there before the Big Bang?

[spurraider21]

So what was there before the Big Bang?
thats a different question. i was specifically addressing "where does the universe end"

[Spurminator]

Yeah...that wasn't my point. I'm with you there. I just don't think we can rule out something out there being smarter than we are.

May not necessarily be smarter. Entire microcivilizations can be born from someone leaving a half eaten Big Mac near a creek.

[SpursforSix]

thats a different question. i was specifically addressing "where does the universe end"

gotcha. I would be interested to know your thoughts on what was there before?

[Blake]

I don't know if it's "someone" or "something" or just some handful of equations that governs everything. And yes...I'd continually ask, "well what was before that?".
Do you have the capability to grasp something starting from nothing? Or do you just accept it?

I'm fine with something always having been around. The issue here in this thread is intelligent design.

[Spurminator]

gotcha. I would be interested to know your thoughts on what was there before?

Maybe time isn't linear and there is no "before" as we understand it.

[SpursforSix]

Maybe time isn't linear and there is no "before" as we understand it.

I can definitely get behind that. And that goes to my statement that we just may not be capable of comprehending the real facts.

[SpursforSix]

I'm fine with something always having been around. The issue here in this thread is intelligent design.

I'm not unfine with it. But I can't understand it. Which means, I can't really say with any certainty what's going on. You can't either.

[SpursforSix]

And are we really much different from robots and AI? We think we have some kind of free will but I fully believe it's just all brain chemistry combined with life experiences. If we had perfect data, I think we could predict the future.

[pgardn]

My best guess is that we're not capable of understanding the universe and how it came into existence. Just like you'll never be able to teach a dog calculus. As humans, we think we're the smartest beings in the world and capable of "getting it" as long as it's explained properly. I don't know if that's the case. The two biggest questions I have are 1) what's the beginning? And as a human, my next question is, "well what was before that?". Then 2) where's the end of the universe? For both questions, I don't think science can fully explain either to me. And I think it's because we don't have the ability to process it.

Bolded: I am pretty sure this is the case. Just look at how we evolved. imo We were not meant to solve every problem in the universe. We dont look closely enough at the stuff WE make up in order to understand the universe imo.

As to the rest of your queries this is how science would answer them imo. It may not be satisfying to you personally, but this is how it is reconciled imo.

1. Time

Time is really a very human way of assessing a series of events. If no events ever occur, time does not make any sense at all as an idea. Its not useful. So from a human perspective, thus a science perspective, time began when events occurred. If nothing ever happens, if no physical (or energy) events occur, then the idea of time does not work. So looking at what time really means... I think most people dont use the definition I have given because its not how we run our lives everyday.

2. What if nothing exists. No physical objects, no energy. What does the universe then mean? So BEFORE the big bang is not a question science can handle because two central ideas, time and space, make no sense. We use words (even math) and examples to define these two ideas. What we have found so far is there is one constant in nature. The speed of light in a vacuum. This is the human scientific take at the moment. Time and Space are not constants. The speed of light, and our relative position to it, change our measurements of space AND time. And then it becomes mathy, but there are experiments to prove both. And they are extraordinarily odd to us because we dont physically or really mentally experience them in our lives. Time on clocks change and objects change size

Section 2 requires a lot more explanation but this is as simply as I can put it as a person that does not really understand the math involved in the General Theory of Relativity, or quantum mechanics. I really can only put a "thumbprint" on the special theory of relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
(which is limited in what it explains. I can do geometric math to get the time dilation equation but it still is very odd to me)
And honestly the people who do understand the math of the above (general and quantum) will tell you if you dont get the math, you cant set up a mental platform to really deeply understand number 2. And then many admit its sort of a fleeting understanding.

[spurraider21]

gotcha. I would be interested to know your thoughts on what was there before?
preliminarily, its perfectly acceptable for the answer to be "we dont know." its possible that we will never know. its possible that we one day will. but if an answer right now is "i dont know, but we're trying to find out"... thats fine. by the scientific method, the one thing you dont do is assume an answer. you instead adopt the "null hypothesis"

but as to your question, it might not even be one that makes sense. as far as we understand, the big bang is what set time, space, and matter into motion. einstein is the one who came up with the "space-time" model. so if there was no space/matter, there also could not be time. so within the closed system that is our universe, there wouldn't really be a "before". its like going to page 1 of a book and asking whats on the page before (and no, not accepting snarky answer like the publisher page or book cover). or what was your life like before you were born (or conceived, whatever). or what was your marriage like before you were married. etc.

beyond that we dont really know much. is it possible that our universe, which appears to be a closed system, is just a pocket or bubble of a greater cosmos/multiverse. we dno.

[pgardn]

My best guess is that we're not capable of understanding the universe and how it came into existence. Just like you'll never be able to teach a dog calculus. As humans, we think we're the smartest beings in the world and capable of "getting it" as long as it's explained properly. I don't know if that's the case. The two biggest questions I have are 1) what's the beginning? And as a human, my next question is, "well what was before that?". Then 2) where's the end of the universe? For both questions, I don't think science can fully explain either to me. And I think it's because we don't have the ability to process it.

And I dont mean to sound all smart about this I am just determined, I dont give up on trying. (Acutally I have given up on General and quantum, I cant do the math. Its too difficult)

I was watching a chess rerun of a tournament in which the winner gets to play Magnus, the current champion.
I know chess just beyond a beginner and I just laid there in bed watching the announcers (who are all very good at chess) explaining the moves and then going into what it would mean further into the play and I was just completely lost. I just laid there knowing I could not possibly keep up with their "well if he did this, then this, then this, oh but this... lets try out this one" I was completely dumfounded. I will never get it. And thats fine for me. But I can appreciate people who can concentrate long enough to see all this in their head. And these people practice constantly, its their life.

[SpursforSix]

Bolded: I am pretty sure this is the case. Just look at how we evolved. imo We were not meant to solve every problem in the universe. We dont look closely enough at the stuff WE make up in order to understand the universe imo.

As to the rest of your queries this is how science would answer them imo. It may not be satisfying to you personally, but this is how it is reconciled imo.

1. Time

Time is really a very human way of assessing a series of events. If no events ever occur, time does not make any sense at all as an idea. Its not useful. So from a human perspective, thus a science perspective, time began when events occurred. If nothing ever happens, if no physical (or energy) events occur, then the idea of time does not work. So looking at what time really means... I think most people dont use the definition I have given because its not how we run our lives everyday.

2. What if nothing exists. No physical objects, no energy. What does the universe then mean? So BEFORE the big bang is not a question science can handle because two central ideas, time and space, make no sense. We use words (even math) and examples to define these two ideas. What we have found so far is there is one constant in nature. The speed of light in a vacuum. This is the human scientific take at the moment. Time and Space are not constants. The speed of light, and our relative position to it, change our measurements of space AND time. And then it becomes mathy, but there are experiments to prove both. And they are extraordinarily odd to us because we dont physically or really mentally experience them in our lives. Time on clocks change and objects change size

Section 2 requires a lot more explanation but this is as simply as I can put it as a person that does not really understand the math involved in the General Theory of Relativity, or quantum mechanics. I really can only put a "thumbprint" on the special theory of relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation
(which is limited in what it explains. I can do geometric math to get the time dilation equation but it still is very odd to me)
And honestly the people who do understand the math of the above (general and quantum) will tell you if you dont get the math, you cant set up a mental platform to really deeply understand number 2. And then many admit its sort of a fleeting understanding.

I appreciate the post. You're right...it doesn't satisfy me. But I do agree with your Time comments. It makes some kind of abstract sense. As to 2, I don't know if science can show me how something comes out of nothing. And maybe that's a limitation on my brain. I certainly don't have enough education in physics or quantum mechanics. But I also don't think any human can understand (much less explain to me) how something came out of nothing. I'm certainly not advocating for a "God". Just pointing out that we might not be capable of "getting it"...whatever "it" is. None of this changes me having to go to work everyday to make sure I can buy food and an Iphone. Again, I'll compare humans to very advanced robots and AI. Once we get to the point of creating robots with AI, will they have these same questions? IMO, humans really are just very well built, self sustaining machines. Personally, I don't think we really have free will. It's all just based on past events and each person's brain chemistry. Is that really any different than a programmed robot?

[pgardn]

Oh.

The universe is a big as we measure and then calculate it to be.
There is no beyond the universe in science. You can only measure space if objects and energy exist.

[Blake]

I'm not unfine with it. But I can't understand it. Which means, I can't really say with any certainty what's going on. You can't either.

Sure. But I can occam razor my way to what it's not.

Not Zeus

Not spaghetti monster

Not Bible God.

So what else is there? I don't care tbh because I'll never know.

I do care when Christians push their shit into legislation because Bible says so. That's why threads like these are in the political forum.

[pgardn]

I appreciate the post. You're right...it doesn't satisfy me. But I do agree with your Time comments. It makes some kind of abstract sense. As to 2, I don't know if science can show me how something comes out of nothing. And maybe that's a limitation on my brain. I certainly don't have enough education in physics or quantum mechanics. But I also don't think any human can understand (much less explain to me) how something came out of nothing. I'm certainly not advocating for a "God". Just pointing out that we might not be capable of "getting it"...whatever "it" is. None of this changes me having to go to work everyday to make sure I can buy food and an Iphone. Again, I'll compare humans to very advanced robots and AI. Once we get to the point of creating robots with AI, will they have these same questions? IMO, humans really are just very well built, self sustaining machines. Personally, I don't think we really have free will. It's all just based on past events and each person's brain chemistry. Is that really any different than a programmed robot?

Bolded

Science absolutely cannot explain it.
Honestly, think about the word nothing. It does not mean anything unless we experience something. And so we get these false sense that if we count objects, those are things, and if there are no objects of the type we are counting, we call this zero. Well thats not what nothing really means here. So words, imo, can be very tricky things.

When we try to explain events we often use analogies "thing of a ball rolling down a smooth inclined plane". Well what if the phenomena we are trying to explain does not fit an analogy we have experienced? Then we go to math. Then the math presents us with a physical model that is totally beyond our experience but the math helps us predict the event we dont even have a fundamental grasp of through analogy. Its a flipping mess. We dont think of how we actually think about things like you said. Incapable. But we still try. We dont give up. We just know there is only so much we can do imo.

[SpursforSix]

And I dont mean to sound all smart about this I am just determined, I dont give up on trying. (Acutally I have given up on General and quantum, I cant do the math. Its too difficult)

I was watching a chess rerun of a tournament in which the winner gets to play Magnus, the current champion.
I know chess just beyond a beginner and I just laid there in bed watching the announcers (who are all very good at chess) explaining the moves and then going into what it would mean further into the play and I was just completely lost. I just laid there knowing I could not possibly keep up with their "well if he did this, then this, then this, oh but this... lets try out this one" I was completely dumfounded. I will never get it. And thats fine for me. But I can appreciate people who can concentrate long enough to see all this in their head. And these people practice constantly, its their life.

I get the analogy. But Chess does have a beginning. Here's the board layout and pieces set in a fixed manner. It's all math at that point. We can create a program that beats most players. Not sure if Magnus has played a computer yet. As a side note, I'd recommend watching "AlphaGo" which is a documentary about designing a program to beat the best Go players. Go is to Chess like Chess is to Checkers. Anyway, I'm OK not knowing. I realize that I'm not anywhere near the brightest minds in the world. But I think I'm smart enough to know that something out of nothing is not explainable. Much less provable.

[spurraider21]

And I dont mean to sound all smart about this I am just determined, I dont give up on trying. (Acutally I have given up on General and quantum, I cant do the math. Its too difficult)

I was watching a chess rerun of a tournament in which the winner gets to play Magnus, the current champion.
I know chess just beyond a beginner and I just laid there in bed watching the announcers (who are all very good at chess) explaining the moves and then going into what it would mean further into the play and I was just completely lost. I just laid there knowing I could not possibly keep up with their "well if he did this, then this, then this, oh but this... lets try out this one" I was completely dumfounded. I will never get it. And thats fine for me. But I can appreciate people who can concentrate long enough to see all this in their head. And these people practice constantly, its their life.
ive been following the candidates as well. nepo coming back this strong after his humiliating defeat last year is quite the story

[pgardn]

ive been following the candidates as well. nepo coming back this strong after his humiliating defeat last year is quite the story

I dont even know the people so its hard for me.
I do know one younger guy with longish light hair was explaining to an older guy with a beard how he could have beaten him instead of drawing.
It "looked" really embarrassing. but I cannot fully appreciate the humbling because I dont get the moves.

[SpursforSix]

Sure. But I can occam razor my way to what it's not.

Not Zeus

Not spaghetti monster

Not Bible God.

So what else is there? I don't care tbh because I'll never know.

I do care when Christians push their shit into legislation because Bible says so. That's why threads like these are in the political forum.

Unlike you, I do care. Even though I'll probably never understand it, I want to try to. Like you, I have a problem with any group pushing their shit into legislation. I'm somewhere between an atheist and an agnostic but way closer to the atheist side. But I will say that in general, Christians are pretty good people. Of course the news portrays all of them as psycho right wing nuts. Just like the right portrays atheists as the most immoral people in the world.

[pgardn]

I get the analogy. But Chess does have a beginning. Here's the board layout and pieces set in a fixed manner. It's all math at that point. We can create a program that beats most players. Not sure if Magnus has played a computer yet. As a side note, I'd recommend watching "AlphaGo" which is a documentary about designing a program to beat the best Go players. Go is to Chess like Chess is to Checkers. Anyway, I'm OK not knowing. I realize that I'm not anywhere near the brightest minds in the world. But I think I'm smart enough to know that something out of nothing is not explainable. Much less provable.

Yep.

The chess illustration is just one of many things I cannot fully appreciate. I watched a documentary about Mozart and the people playing his work were explaining the subtly... and just right over my head. Zing... nothing.
I know they are super passionate about it but I cant get it and its very frustrating. Science is calming because its finite for me. We basically suck at knowing things. Yes we will understand more, but never fully get the universe. It will become more complex imo. An ape is not a good vehicle for what we try and do. But I cant get out of the vehicle so... yeah.

[SpursforSix]

Yep.

The chess illustration is just one of many things I cannot fully appreciate. I watched a documentary about Mozart and the people playing his work were explaining the subtly... and just right over my head. Zing... nothing.
I know they are super passionate about it but I cant get it and its very frustrating. Science is calming because its finite for me. We basically suck at knowing things. Yes we will understand more, but never fully get the universe. It will become more complex imo. An ape is not a good vehicle for what we try and do. But I cant get out of the vehicle so... yeah.

Talking about music, it's always been interesting to me that we know what kind of music we like but most of us are incapable of creating it ourselves.

[SpursforSix]

Talking about music, it's always been interesting to me that we know what kind of music we like but most of us are incapable of creating it ourselves.

At a base level, it's just 12 notes (for Western music) but the average person can't put together a song for themselves.

[spurraider21]

I dont even know the people so its hard for me.
I do know one younger guy with longish light hair was explaining to an older guy with a beard how he could have beaten him instead of drawing.
It "looked" really embarrassing. but I cannot fully appreciate the humbling because I dont get the moves.
my interest in chess has been pretty come and go since my middle school days. stopped playing in late high school. really got back to it in college. off and on. after the queens gamibt netflix series ive basically been following the professional scene.

Nepo is the russain dude who won the same event last time around and was able to challenge Magnus Carlsen in the 2021 championship. after 5 very even/dull draws, nepo lost one game in dramatic fashion, and then he basically collapsed and lost other games with frankly embarrassing/elementary blunders that were simply not becoming of a professional chess player.

but now he's had a dominating start to the tournament this time around as well

[spurraider21]

Talking about music, it's always been interesting to me that we know what kind of music we like but most of us are incapable of creating it ourselves.
i know more about the blues than anyone, i'll tell ya

[SpursforSix]

i know more about the blues than anyone, i'll tell ya

Ok Sparky, talk to me about Blind Joe Finglefart. Poopshoot Magoo? I've got a Tolliver Goobus 45 stuck in my track and field mag. What do you have?

[pgardn]

my interest in chess has been pretty come and go since my middle school days. stopped playing in late high school. really got back to it in college. off and on. after the queens gamibt netflix series ive basically been following the professional scene.

Nepo is the russain dude who won the same event last time around and was able to challenge Magnus Carlsen in the 2021 championship. after 5 very even/dull draws, nepo lost one game in dramatic fashion, and then he basically collapsed and lost other games with frankly embarrassing/elementary blunders that were simply not becoming of a professional chess player.

but now he's had a dominating start to the tournament this time around as well

Oh I remember that!
And I also get the "not becoming of a professional chess player" as these guys are supposed to be able to shrug off what happened and get right back into the present unfazed. Part of their rating is consistency and being able to overcome screw ups. There is a Chinese guy in this tourney that got into a really difficult situation and got a draw out of it. His opponent and the analyzers said he did a fantastic job getting a draw. This was after he had a player in a very difficult position and failed to close him out. So he made an outstanding recovery AFTER playing a bad game. And was greatly admired for it. Seems the chess world really likes the Chinese guy. I am not sure why.

I think they need to change the name of this event into something like "the winner of this gets to play the world champion"

only more dramatic.

[pgardn]

Ok Sparky, talk to me about Blind Joe Finglefart. Poopshoot Magoo? I've got a Tolliver Goobus 45 stuck in my track and field mag. What do you have?

See you are really good at this imo.

I will never forget him scrounging around at garage sales for old cassette tapes and continually striking gold.

[spurraider21]

Oh I remember that!
And I also get the "not becoming of a professional chess player" as these guys are supposed to be able to shrug off what happened and get right back into the present unfazed. Part of their rating is consistency and being able to overcome screw ups. There is a Chinese guy in this tourney that got into a really difficult situation and got a draw out of it. His opponent and the analyzers said he did a fantastic job getting a draw. This was after he had a player in a very difficult position and failed to close him out. So he made an outstanding recovery AFTER playing a bad game. And was greatly admired for it. Seems the chess world really likes the Chinese guy. I am not sure why.

I think they need to change the name of this event into something like "the winner of this gets to play the world champion"

only more dramatic.
yeah that was Ding Liren who defended his position perfectly. his opponent was very well prepared and blitzed out something like 20+ moves without expending any time because those were lines he had specifically studied and prepared prior to the match. Ding had to spend a considerable amount of time (i think he was down about an hour on the clock) but basically played the optimal engine move every turn and the game wound down into a draw.

the actual gameplay is well above my head, but when i follow the analysis i'm at least able to make sense of things after the fact.

[Joseph Kony]

:lmao

My objection is that god doesnt exist nor is there any proof that god exists. this shitty video doesnt ANSWER anything aside from reaffirming that OP is a low IQ jeebotard