| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"wcb" |
| Date: |
16 Sep 2006 12:50:33 AM |
| Object: |
Day 5 challenge. Gandy, put up or admit you are a troll |
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
If you are going to lie, lie, lie, at least tell a belivable lie.
Now prove your claim or admit you are a fool.
Save your credibility! Which is all but non-existant.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 5 challenge. Barwell the troll |
16 Sep 2006 01:07:33 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gn46isa2gdf71@corp.supernews.com...
If you are going to lie, lie, lie, at least tell a belivable lie.
I leave the lying to you, Barney
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 5 challenge. Gandy won't back up bizarre claims, wont admit he lied. |
16 Sep 2006 09:06:12 AM |
|
|
Gandalf Grey wrote:
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12gn46isa2gdf71@corp.supernews.com...
If you are going to lie, lie, lie, at least tell a believable lie.
September 11 - Gandy Grey:
As opposed to someone like you who never worked anything out, Whitehead's
philosophy is now acclaimed as the philosophy behind modern science.
This is a lie you told, *****. A bizarre and truly stupid lie.
You can't back it up and you stubbornly refuse to admit you made this crap
up.
You have no credibility.
--
Where did all these braindead morons come from!
What diseased sewer did they breed in and how did
they manage to find their way out on their own?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gandalf Grey" |
|
| Title: Re: Day 5 challenge. Barwell won't back up bizarre claims, wont admit he lied. |
16 Sep 2006 11:53:40 AM |
|
|
"wcb" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:12go17tah8ei2a0@corp.supernews.com...
This is a lie you told
This is a lie you told.
What's interesting about Barwell's attack is that it is precisely the same
kind of attack that we expect from the Creationist Fundamentalists. He
noticed an internal debate within the process philosophy community and is
now pretending that the PT community has "admitted" that PT doesn't work.
All of that is precisely like saying that scientists have admitted that
Darwinian Evolution is false because Stephen Gould proposed the theory of
punctuated equilibrium.
I've appended the conclusions of the article that Barwell attempted to
misrepresent so that the group can see the extent to which Barwell is
willing to go to spread his lies.
Anyone wishing to read the entire article can go to.
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2829
Hartshorne, God, and Relativity Physics
by David Ray Griffin
[excerpt]
Summary
The idea that the special theory of relativity creates problems for
temporalistic theisms, such as that of Whitehead and especially Hartshorne
arises from a combination of a fact and an assumption. The fact is that this
theory does not provide the basis for a cosmic "now." The assumption is that
this theory has ontological implications for the truth about time. Combining
the fact and the assumption creates the idea that special relativity physics
rules out the possibility of a cosmic "now." And that idea, if true, would
seem to rule out the possible truth of temporalistic theisms in which God
and the world interact.
But we need not assume that special relativity physics has ontological
implications for the nature of time. One way to relativize its status is to
postulate a form of efficient causation that influences distant events
instantaneously. In Whiteheadian terms, the principle that contemporaries do
not interact causally is still affirmed, because the instantaneous influence
is exerted only after an occasion achieves satisfaction. This proposal,
which I prefer, is aligned with some positions currently proposed by
physicists, in which a cosmic "now" based on instantaneous effects is
affirmed. A second way to reconcile temporalistic theism and relativity
physics is simply to see the latter as having no ontological implications
about time whatsoever, so that the possibility of a cosmic "now" is left
open, then postulating that a cosmic "now" does exist for God by virtue of
God's all-inclusive standpoint. This second proposal is in harmony with
suggestions by temporalistic theists beyond the process camp.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
