| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Gandalf Grey" |
| Date: |
13 Jun 2006 01:09:04 AM |
| Object: |
Barlow Continues to Run Away from a Simple Question |
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about process philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didn't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
[crickets.wav]
.
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Barlow Continues to Run Away from a Simple Question |
13 Jun 2006 02:00:18 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way the
stamina to digest "gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaProcess and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
through that, you don't the
stamina to dig the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know wgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eahat the hell you're talking about.
est "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't knogangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaw what the hell you're talking about.
know what the hell you're tgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com>
wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaalking about.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
grey@infectedmagandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0icgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
il.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
dalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwegandalfgrey@infecgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
tedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
ll@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
..com> wrote in message
news:gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
barwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about procgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaess philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didngangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
[crickets.wav]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Barlow Continues to Run Away from a Simple Question |
13 Jun 2006 02:00:25 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way the
stamina to digest "gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaProcess and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
through that, you don't the
stamina to dig the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know wgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eahat the hell you're talking about.
est "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't knogangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaw what the hell you're talking about.
know what the hell you're tgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com>
wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaalking about.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
grey@infectedmagandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0icgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
il.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
dalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwegandalfgrey@infecgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
tedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
ll@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
..com> wrote in message
news:gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
barwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about procgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaess philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didngangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
[crickets.wav]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Barlow Continues to Run Away from a Simple Question |
13 Jun 2006 02:00:26 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way the
stamina to digest "gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaProcess and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
through that, you don't the
stamina to dig the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know wgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eahat the hell you're talking about.
est "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't knogangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaw what the hell you're talking about.
know what the hell you're tgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com>
wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaalking about.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
grey@infectedmagandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0icgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
il.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
dalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwegandalfgrey@infecgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
tedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
ll@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
..com> wrote in message
news:gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
barwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about procgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaess philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didngangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
[crickets.wav]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Barlow Continues to Run Away from a Simple Question |
13 Jun 2006 03:02:28 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about process philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didn't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the
creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
its a natural outgrowth of fact god does not know the future.
And he cannot unilaterally affect the world.
I posted these facts a few times, PT theology has abandonded
omnipotent and omniscience god concepts.
You as usual, have no brains, no memory.
I posted this several times and you didn't remember it.
PT god gives us nothing, free will is a natural
out growth of the concept of a limited god.
Moron!
http://www.ctr4process.org/about/process/GodUniver
se.shtml
a perspective from process theology...
by William Stegall
5.
God never creates alone! Past energy events (cause
and effect) and the subjectivity or freedom of
present energy events in the process of becoming
also effect the shape reality is taking.
6.
Therefore, there are limits on Divine power, as
God has to work with what is given and is unable
to exclusively determine the outcome at any given
moment. God is the supreme, but not the exclusive
factor, influencing the process or forward
movement of reality.
A. This is not a limitation God has chosen to place
upon Godself in order to allow us to have some
freedom.
B. God's limitation and our freedom are simply
"givens" in the process of reality that neither
God nor we asked for, but in fact find to be
inherent in our situation.
...........
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barlow Continues to Run Away from a Simple Question |
13 Jun 2006 11:34:00 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128srqdlontq3b6@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"Gandalf Grey" <gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about process philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didn't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the
creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
Wrong. Try again. I'll give you a couple of shots at this just to
demonstrate that you don't know anything that isn't coming at you from
tertiary sources on the net.
And, by the way, Barwell. Don't bother snipping headers. I'll just keep
putting them back. It's important that everyone concerned sees how stupid
you really are.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the
creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Gandalf is a dumbass |
13 Jun 2006 11:53:34 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
Wrong. Try again. I'll give you a couple of shots at this just to
demonstrate that you don't know anything that isn't coming at you from
tertiary sources on the net.
And, by the way, Barwell. Don't bother snipping headers. I'll just keep
putting them back. It's important that everyone concerned sees how stupid
you really are.
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=18
PROCESS THEOLOGY
Process Theology by John B. Cobb, Jr.
An outline of Process Theology, written by one of its creators.
On Hasker?s Defense of his Parity Claim by David Ray Griffin
This is one in a series of four articles written in exchange between William
Hasker and David Griffin. (See the Problem of Evil in Process Theism and
Classical Free-Will Theism by William Hasker; Traditional Free Will
Theodicy and Process Theodicy: Hasker?s Claim for Parity; "Bitten to Death
by Ducks": A Reply to Griffin; On Hasker?s Defense of his Parity Claim by
David Ray Griffin (see www.religion-online.org.) Dr. Griffin thinks
Hasker?s reaction illustrates that more people need to realize they are not
limited to the choice between traditional theism and atheism.
Process Theism Versus Free-Will Theism: A Response To Griffin by David
Basinger
Dr. Basinger discusses the problem of evil from three perspectives: 1.
Theological determinism; 2. Free-will theism; 3. Process theology.
The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism by
William Hasker
Dr. Hasker writes that Process thought leaves God?s control over the events
of the world so much less than classical theism. God provides the initial
aim for each occasion, and that aim, we are assured, is for the best that
is attainable in the given situation
Traditional Free Will Theodicy and Process Theodicy: Hasker?s Claim for
Parity by David Ray Griffin
Dr. Griffin challenges Hasker?s parity claim between classical and process
theism. (See The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will
Theism by William Hasker, www.religion-online.org.
There are literally hundreds of essays on PT online.
Many deal with problems of PT theology and free will.
Simply put, the standard PT theory is, god does not see the
future and god is not omnipotent, the world affects god.
That is all. You are still an idiot who is so stupid you cannot see why
words like omnipotent can't be redefined on the fly for everybody by a net
kook such as yourself.
Simple logic like "Something cannot come from nothing" defeats your brain
utterly.
On to of that you are a liar and a jerk.
Anybody wants to read what Griffin has to say about PT and free will can
go to this site and read teyh five articles wheer Griffin and Hasker debate
teh issues.
Here, Grifffin explains explicitly where free will in PT theory comes from.
God is explicitly not omniscient in regards to future which in PT has not
happened yet. And god is not omnipotent, the entire Universe as it
changes, changes god, he does not change the Universe unilaterally,
by his own power.
You are again, an arrogant, stupid, moron.
Bluntly, nobody gives a ***** about you anymore.
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell is a dumbass |
14 Jun 2006 12:32:10 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128v541hurloede@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
Wrong. Try again. I'll give you a couple of shots at this just to
demonstrate that you don't know anything that isn't coming at you from
tertiary sources on the net.
And, by the way, Barwell. Don't bother snipping headers. I'll just keep
putting them back. It's important that everyone concerned sees how stupid
you really are.
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=18
Sorry, Barwell. The answer's not online, so Google isn't going to save your
***** this time.
One more time. Why did God give creature's free will according to process
theology?
Get ready to look stupid, Barwell.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Gandy Goose is stupid and ignorant to boot. |
14 Jun 2006 02:49:17 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128v541hurloede@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
Wrong. Try again. I'll give you a couple of shots at this just to
demonstrate that you don't know anything that isn't coming at you from
tertiary sources on the net.
And, by the way, Barwell. Don't bother snipping headers. I'll just keep
putting them back. It's important that everyone concerned sees how
stupid you really are.
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=18
Sorry, Barwell. The answer's not online, so Google isn't going to save
your ***** this time.
One more time. Why did God give creature's free will according to process
theology?
Get ready to look stupid, Barwell.
He didn't give it up.
IN PT, Stupid, god has not foreknowledge of future.
Stupid.
Because the future is not here yet, not even for god.
Stupid.
And god cannot, unilaterally affect all in the Universe.
IF, he cannot make everything in the Universe to his
satisfaction, he can only have general aim.
Supid.
Hence, Stupid, free will comes from this.
Stupid.
You stupid *****. As if anybody cares what YOU think,
if you can call anything you do, thinking.
You are stupid. And you enjoying demonstrating that too.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2493
In his critique of "traditional" Christian theodicies in his book God, Power
and Evil: A Process Theodicy David Griffin distinguishes between what he
calls "I" omnipotence and "C" omnipotence. The proponent of "I"
omnipotence, we are told, maintains that an omnipotent being can
unilaterally affect any state of affairs, if that state of affairs is
intrinsically possible," and, accordingly, must maintain that all evil is
only apparent (nongenuine) (GPE 270). On the other hand, the proponent of
"C" omnipotence maintains that it is not logically possible for God to
unilaterally control the activities of self determining beings, even if
such activities are intrinsically possible, and, accordingly, can
acknowledge that genuine evil is possible (GPE 269f). It is Griffin?s
contention that only a theism that entails "C" omnipotence is able to
reconcile divine power and goodness with the genuineness of evil. On this
basis Griffin argues for the superiority of process theism over traditional
theism.
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell Admits He knows NOTHING about Process Philosophy |
14 Jun 2006 07:43:14 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128vfdfmedujhc0@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128v541hurloede@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
Wrong. Try again. I'll give you a couple of shots at this just to
demonstrate that you don't know anything that isn't coming at you from
tertiary sources on the net.
And, by the way, Barwell. Don't bother snipping headers. I'll just keep
putting them back. It's important that everyone concerned sees how
stupid you really are.
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=18
Sorry, Barwell. The answer's not online, so Google isn't going to save
your ***** this time.
One more time. Why did God give creature's free will according to
process
theology?
Get ready to look stupid, Barwell.
He didn't give it up.
1. Who's "He"? Just can't shake free of that Catholic Dogma drilled into
you at Our Lady of Perpetual Stupidity, can you?
2. didn't give WHAT up?
It's been fun, but now I'm done watching you ooze around with your Jello
routine, spitting out as many internet quotes as you could, hoping that one
of them might at least scratch the subject. I've enjoyed it, but even I can
only take just so much of your Ann Coulter impression. Besides that,
there's some people out there who actually want to know the facts.
So let's look at what Process Theology actually says.
God gave actual entities [also called actual occasions: See Process and
Reality] "a high degree of freedom" NOT because that feedom is worth all the
evils which it could produce because it is so overwhelmingly valuable in
itself [that kind of thing is covered in other theodicies].
Nor did God give actual entities a high degree of freedom because only
genuinely free moral and religious acts are valuable in the eyes of god
[also covered in other theodicies].
The answer is that no "significant degree of intrinsic value would be
possible without a significant degree of freedom. If there is "trivial"
freedom, there is "trivial" value. See "Religion in the Making" A.N.
Whitehead for direct quotes.
[In order to understand "triviality" as it is understood in process
theology, and the dynamic between triviality and 'intensity,' versus
'harmony' and 'discord.' the answer is found in "Reenchantment without
Supernaturalism by D. Griffin.]
"In the evolutionary process, the increase in the capacity for enjoying
intrinisic goodness means the increase in the power to integrate
harmoniously an ever-greater variety of data from the environment. But this
power is one and the same thing as the power for self-determination. This
is made especially clear by the fact that harmonious integration of
disparate feelings requires the introduction of novelty by the integrating
subject. The introduction of novelty is the sign of mentality, and
mentality is nothing other than the subject's determination of its process
of 'concrescence.'"
--David Griffin, "God, Power, & Evil
["Concrescence" is defined and discussed in Donald W. Sherburne: "A Key to
Whitehead's Process and Reality"]
In summary, Barwell, by taking refuge in your usual google searches for
knowledge you don't possess, you've managed to miss even a superficial
explanation of why a high degree of freedom is the cornerstone of process
theology. Actual occurrences aren't free because God can't know the future.
On the contrary, the process god knows as much about the future as it's
possible for any being to know. And because of this, God knows that the
highest degree of intensity and harmony for the future of all actual
entities lies in a high degree of freedom for actual occurrences
You don't understand the first thing about process theology, Barwell or even
the most basic facts and terms of process metaphysics. That being the case,
how could you possibly know that process theology is "wooly," or "touchy
feely" or any of the other dismissive one-liners you've aimed at it?
You couldn't.
But I'll tell you why you tried to pretend you could.
Once again, you didn't have a fast, one-size-fits-all argument to throw at
process theology, so you started trying to dismiss it as "unimportant,"
"wooly" and your other nonsense comments. This is now your established MO,
Barwell. If you think no one else knows anything about a subject, you toss
around a lot of derivative, circular, hyperbole like your multi-part, poorly
written, badly researched, derivative, so-called 'essays on strong atheism.'
Once it becomes clear that your oppenent actually knows the suject, you
either start tossing the ad hom grenades or you pretend that the subject
isn't important.
Your credibility is now in the negative numbers, Barwell. Your foray into
process theology was as big a catastrophe as your monumental stupidity on
the subject of why metaphysics is called "meta" physics. Anyone attempting
to demonstrate that he has some reason to be lurking around philosophical
discussions ought to know enough history to know why the greeks called it
"after-physics" and not "before-physics"
I usually use the word "moron" as an insult, Barwell. But in your case,
it's simply descriptive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Gandy Admits He knows NOTHING |
14 Jun 2006 08:40:44 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
1. Who's "He"? Just can't shake free of that Catholic Dogma drilled into
you at Our Lady of Perpetual Stupidity, can you?
Again, man's free will arises from fact god cannot forsee the
future and is not totally omnipotent.
God does not get to create these facts, they are givens in
PT.
Hartshorne, in fact, wrote a book called Omnipotence and other theological
mistakes. (Hartshorne 1984) Process philosophy was all the rage when I was
a graduate student at the University of Chicago Divinity School in the
1950s. I put no more stock in it then than I do now. In essence, it
sacrifices God's omnipotence and, indeed, his role as creator of the
universe not only to human freedom but to the freedom of mythical units
called events or occasions. God's role is limited to "luring" those units
to make maximally beneficial choices, a lure that they can, of course,
choose to ignore. However they choose, all occasions and "societies of
occasions" are retained in God's "consequent nature," the occasion of all
occasions that remembers the "objective pole" or realized choices of all
subsidiary occasions, giving them "objective immortality." As far as I can
determine, process theology has no universal creator and, in my view, if
God is not the creator of all that is, He is not God.
--
"I used to think the brain was the most fascinating part
of the body. Then I thought, "Look what's telling me
that."
- Emo Phillips
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell Admits He knows NOTHING |
14 Jun 2006 08:43:07 AM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:129040edlfd2v68@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
1. Who's "He"? Just can't shake free of that Catholic Dogma drilled into
you at Our Lady of Perpetual Stupidity, can you?
Again, man's free will arises from fact god cannot forsee the
future and is not totally omnipotent.
So you've got nothing but the usual repaste. I've got actual quotes from
actual books. You've got assertions that you can't back.
Hartshorne, in fact, wrote a book called Omnipotence and other theological
mistakes. (Hartshorne 1984)
Excellent book.
Process philosophy was all the rage when I was
a graduate student at the University of Chicago Divinity School in the
1950s.
And you still don't know a damned thing about it. I post the real facts
again. If you've got the balls to face them item by item, go for, coward.
If not, your credibility is toast.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128vfdfmedujhc0@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128v541hurloede@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
He didn't "give" us anything, according to PT and Whitehead,
Wrong. Try again. I'll give you a couple of shots at this just to
demonstrate that you don't know anything that isn't coming at you from
tertiary sources on the net.
And, by the way, Barwell. Don't bother snipping headers. I'll just keep
putting them back. It's important that everyone concerned sees how
stupid you really are.
http://www.religion-online.org/listbycategory.asp?Cat=18
Sorry, Barwell. The answer's not online, so Google isn't going to save
your ***** this time.
One more time. Why did God give creature's free will according to
process
theology?
Get ready to look stupid, Barwell.
He didn't give it up.
1. Who's "He"? Just can't shake free of that Catholic Dogma drilled into
you at Our Lady of Perpetual Stupidity, can you?
2. didn't give WHAT up?
It's been fun, but now I'm done watching you ooze around with your Jello
routine, spitting out as many internet quotes as you could, hoping that one
of them might at least scratch the subject. I've enjoyed it, but even I can
only take just so much of your Ann Coulter impression. Besides that,
there's some people out there who actually want to know the facts.
So let's look at what Process Theology actually says.
God gave actual entities [also called actual occasions: See Process and
Reality] "a high degree of freedom" NOT because that feedom is worth all the
evils which it could produce because it is so overwhelmingly valuable in
itself [that kind of thing is covered in other theodicies].
Nor did God give actual entities a high degree of freedom because only
genuinely free moral and religious acts are valuable in the eyes of god
[also covered in other theodicies].
The answer is that no "significant degree of intrinsic value would be
possible without a significant degree of freedom. If there is "trivial"
freedom, there is "trivial" value. See "Religion in the Making" A.N.
Whitehead for direct quotes.
[In order to understand "triviality" as it is understood in process
theology, and the dynamic between triviality and 'intensity,' versus
'harmony' and 'discord.' the answer is found in "Reenchantment without
Supernaturalism by D. Griffin.]
"In the evolutionary process, the increase in the capacity for enjoying
intrinisic goodness means the increase in the power to integrate
harmoniously an ever-greater variety of data from the environment. But this
power is one and the same thing as the power for self-determination. This
is made especially clear by the fact that harmonious integration of
disparate feelings requires the introduction of novelty by the integrating
subject. The introduction of novelty is the sign of mentality, and
mentality is nothing other than the subject's determination of its process
of 'concrescence.'"
--David Griffin, "God, Power, & Evil
["Concrescence" is defined and discussed in Donald W. Sherburne: "A Key to
Whitehead's Process and Reality"]
In summary, Barwell, by taking refuge in your usual google searches for
knowledge you don't possess, you've managed to miss even a superficial
explanation of why a high degree of freedom is the cornerstone of process
theology. Actual occurrences aren't free because God can't know the future.
On the contrary, the process god knows as much about the future as it's
possible for any being to know. And because of this, God knows that the
highest degree of intensity and harmony for the future of all actual
entities lies in a high degree of freedom for actual occurrences
You don't understand the first thing about process theology, Barwell or even
the most basic facts and terms of process metaphysics. That being the case,
how could you possibly know that process theology is "wooly," or "touchy
feely" or any of the other dismissive one-liners you've aimed at it?
You couldn't.
But I'll tell you why you tried to pretend you could.
Once again, you didn't have a fast, one-size-fits-all argument to throw at
process theology, so you started trying to dismiss it as "unimportant,"
"wooly" and your other nonsense comments. This is now your established MO,
Barwell. If you think no one else knows anything about a subject, you toss
around a lot of derivative, circular, hyperbole like your multi-part, poorly
written, badly researched, derivative, so-called 'essays on strong atheism.'
Once it becomes clear that your oppenent actually knows the suject, you
either start tossing the ad hom grenades or you pretend that the subject
isn't important.
Your credibility is now in the negative numbers, Barwell. Your foray into
process theology was as big a catastrophe as your monumental stupidity on
the subject of why metaphysics is called "meta" physics. Anyone attempting
to demonstrate that he has some reason to be lurking around philosophical
discussions ought to know enough history to know why the greeks called it
"after-physics" and not "before-physics"
I usually use the word "moron" as an insult, Barwell. But in your case,
it's simply descriptive.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Gandy Admits He knows NOTHING |
14 Jun 2006 05:45:05 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:40:44 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Again, man's free will arises from fact god cannot forsee the
future and is not totally omnipotent.
Actually he does know your final decision, and leaves it to you to get there.
But you don't know it, and you still have to make the decision to follow God or
follow satan.
Better luck next time, barnyard.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "shrikeback" |
|
| Title: Re: Gandy Admits He knows NOTHING |
14 Jun 2006 11:50:45 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:094192dpi8eklireok7j04obt3nqc5nlhg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:40:44 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Again, man's free will arises from fact god cannot forsee the
future and is not totally omnipotent.
Actually he does know your final decision, and leaves it to you to get
there.
If He knows ahead of time what our final decisions are, then they must not
be freely made. They are predetermined. A will that is predetermined is
not free, for it cannot drive outside the gullies of Fate.
But you don't know it, and you still have to make the decision to follow
God or
follow satan.
Better luck next time, barnyard.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Free Will and Compatibilism |
15 Jun 2006 01:00:07 AM |
|
|
"shrikeback" <hewpiedawg@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1dudnXQSG45teA3ZnZ2dnUVZ_rednZ2d@comcast.com...
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:094192dpi8eklireok7j04obt3nqc5nlhg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:40:44 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Again, man's free will arises from fact god cannot forsee the
future and is not totally omnipotent.
Actually he does know your final decision, and leaves it to you to get
there.
If He knows ahead of time what our final decisions are, then they must not
be freely made. They are predetermined. A will that is predetermined is
not free, for it cannot drive outside the gullies of Fate.
You're forgetting compatibilism.
Not saying I'm in entire agreement with compatibilism, but I think you have
to take it into account. And if you do, it's difficult to argue that a
deeper sense of free will is meaningful let alone arguable.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kurt Nicklas" |
|
| Title: Re: Gandy Admits He knows NOTHING |
14 Jun 2006 06:11:50 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:094192dpi8eklireok7j04obt3nqc5nlhg@4ax.com...
On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 08:40:44 -0500, wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com>
wrote:
Again, man's free will arises from fact god cannot forsee the
future and is not totally omnipotent.
Actually he does know your final decision, and leaves it to you to get
there.
But you don't know it, and you still have to make the decision to follow
God or
follow satan.
Better luck next time, barnyard.
Another entry to the growing list of Billy Barwellisms: "not totally
omnipotent".
What a hoot!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "A-Meister" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell Admits He knows NOTHING about Process Philosophy |
14 Jun 2006 04:34:21 PM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
In summary, Barwell, by taking refuge in your usual google searches for
knowledge you don't possess ...
You could just as well be speaking to Maff.
After a "discussion" with him, I understood
why he usually sticks to posting URL's.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Barwell Admits He knows NOTHING about Process Philosophy |
14 Jun 2006 04:46:58 PM |
|
|
"A-Meister" <a@meister.com> wrote in message
news:zKadnfYzPtBAHQ3ZnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
In summary, Barwell, by taking refuge in your usual google searches for
knowledge you don't possess ...
You could just as well be speaking to Maff.
After a "discussion" with him, I understood
why he usually sticks to posting URL's.
He's good for a few laughs and a virtual textbook on how not to think.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Jones" |
|
| Title: Re: Barlow to Run Away from a Simple Question |
13 Jun 2006 05:10:26 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way the
stamina to digest "gangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaProcess and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
through that, you don't the
stamina to dig the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know wgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eahat the hell you're talking about.
est "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't knogangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaw what the hell you're talking about.
know what the hell you're tgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com>
wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaalking about.
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
grey@infectedmagandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0icgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
il.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
dalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwegandalfgrey@infecgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
tedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
ll@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
..com> wrote in message
news:gandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
barwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:128np5u1leo0ic3@corp.supernews.com...
Gandalf Grey wrote:
I've forgotten more about procgangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19eaess philosophy than you'll ever know,
Barwell. Even if you had the ability to read a book, you wouldn't have
the
stamina to digest "Process and Reality." And until you've worked your
way
through that, you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
You showed you didngangandalfgandalfgrey@infectedmail.com> wrote in message
news:448c4a25$0$18474$9a6e19ea't know dirt about PT or the PT god.
Then you should be able to prove how much you know by answering a very
simple question.
According to process theology: why did God give free will to the creation?
Where's your answer, Barwell?
[crickets.wav]
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
