Doesn't deism seem more logical?

[jdwood983]

I would not call the universe a perfect system. For example, I was reading about that typhoon over in Japan and the Pacific islands. It said typhoons are beneficial and necessary for balancing out the earth’s climate and preventing drought. Well um, that sucks. A perfect system would not need something as destructive as that to sustain itself.

The universe is a perfect system because it follows perfect physical laws. Non-perfection is a human quality, so you are anthropomorphizing your deity & thus contradicting yourself in your own definition. God, then, ought be perfect since he is not human.

Pandeism says the creator became the universe so that’s one possibility. Deism says It’s still there. So maybe It didn’t really disappear, It just became something different (matter) or is there but inactive.

So the watch-maker argument here: he just made us and left. I suppose a non-perfect being could do so, but as I stated above: non-perfection is a human quality & shouldn’t be included in your definition of a deity, thus, logically, god must still be interacting with us.

Interesting. Others have said it’s too simple. Although they were talking about deism not dei-ish-ism. I am proposing a relatively simple (nonsentient), practically undefinable higher power.

I don’t think anything is too simple, just not explained well enough. I don’t think your ideas are meshing well with logic, but it’s not the worst idea I’ve heard (even though I don’t believe it for a moment).

 

[ThinkingSapien]

God, then, ought be perfect since he is not human.

“Perfection” is included in some definitions for some deities, but not all of them. It also seems that when “perfection” comes up in conversations like this people don’t always mean the same thing or have the same criteria for something to be perfect making it an almost ambiguous word.

 

[William_of_Ware]

“Perfection” is included in some definitions for some deities, but not all of them. It also seems that when “perfection” comes up in conversations like this people don’t always mean the same thing or have the same criteria for something to be perfect making it an almost ambiguous word.

that cannot be right, any superman, be it Zeus, spider-man, Amaterasu, Thor, genies, archangels, Azathoth that are described as perfect cannot be perfect since we can imagine an even more “super” or perfect being than them.

perfect simply meant limitless, infinite or necessary. it is not ambiguous at all. maybe some people misuses the term perfect, but, that’s their problem, not the problem of the term itself.

 

[samiam1611]

The universe is a perfect system because it follows perfect physical laws. Non-perfection is a human quality, so you are anthropomorphizing your deity & thus contradicting yourself in your own definition. God, then, ought be perfect since he is not human.

Ahh, ok, ThinkingSapien is right. We are using different definitions. My definition is very vague…I more said that as a rejection of your God concept, as opposed to an actual characteristic of this god that I am proposing. (And then I added nonevil to clarify that just bc It is not perfect (i.e. good) does not mean It’s evil.)

If I had said “imperfect” you would be right. Absolutely, yes, that would be anthromorphisizing. Do you see the difference between nonperfect and imperfect?

I place a lot of emphasis on the nonanthromorphic part of my definition. Nonperfect and nonevil were used to distinguish it from your God bc you guys might have been inclined to equate nonperfect with evil. Perhaps that made things more confusing?

So the watch-maker argument here: he just made us and left. I suppose a non-perfect being could do so, but as I stated above: non-perfection is a human quality & shouldn’t be included in your definition of a deity, thus, logically, god must still be interacting with us

I disagree, I do not think that logically, god must be interacting with us. I am not saying it’s illogical, mind you. It is one possibility I suppose. But I think you are using your imagination to come to the conclusion that a perfect god must interact with us. Imagination or wishful thinking or Revelation perhaps. The second half of your sentence does not follow from the first when strictly relying on logic/reason.

I don’t think anything is too simple, just not explained well enough. I don’t think your ideas are meshing well with logic, but it’s not the worst idea I’ve heard (even though I don’t believe it for a moment).

It took me all of 30 seconds to write, so as this thread goes along, I will see if I can reword it. Since I don’t actually believe it either, that might not be possible but I will try. It’s a definition in progress, shall we say.

I hope if you can see the distinction between nonperfect and imperfect, that might make it mesh a little better with logic. If you do not understand the distinction, I will try to explain it, just let me know.

perfect simply meant limitless, infinite or necessary.

That is not my definition of perfect. If you want to use that definition, ok, then yes, I will not rule out perfection as one attribute of this god.

Our Universe exists; it operates rationally, and has succeeded in generating us, and whatever comes of us. Intelligence is prerequisite to the creation of governing dynamics so elegantly set forth as to be able to generate this level of complexity;

I disagree. Your belief sounds a lot like monotheism blended with some pantheistic concepts. Here’s how I see it:

I am going with the assumption that the laws of the universe/nature could have come about without divine governance. (That’s the atheist in me talking, I suppose.) I am proposing a god who became whatever it was that blew up in the Big Bang. I don’t know if It planned it to turn out like it did, or if it just happened that way. I don’t know if It was trying to end Its existence like Godric the vampire, but things did not go as planned, or if It “knew” ahead of time that by smushing itself into a gravitation singularity, It would rapidly expand and become matter.

I am proposing a god (a Creator) to fill one gap and one gap only that science can’t fill - what was before the Big Bang - how did elementary particles, how did matter, originate. I adopt a naturalistic view from then on. (p.s. I actually believe in naturalism only; this thread is the <1% agnostic in me talking.)

the nature of our Creator’s intelligence may be a mystery, but the lower bound of it is not, for it must be at least intelligent enough to accomplish the result with which we are faced.

That’s cool. Well-worded. I don’t believe that myself, but that seems more likely and logical than the theist’s concept of god.

 

[babylonsfalling]

I am an atheist but acknowledge that maybe I’m wrong (agnostic atheist), <—That’s agnostic…without any qualifiers and it would be lovely to have some things explained. Namely, creation - how the universe came to be - what was there “before” the Big Bang. Of all the conceptions of God that I have heard of, deism is more acceptable to me than theism. Here is a definition of deism for you:

Deism is the recognition of a universal creative force greater than that demonstrated by mankind, supported by personal observation of laws and designs in nature and the universe, perpetuated and validated by the innate ability of human reason coupled with the rejection of claims made by individuals and organized religions of having received special divine revelation <—Is that “definition” from a dictionary?

(~World Union of Deists)

My definition: An impersonal, nonanthromorphic, nonperfect but nonevil creator who does not use magical powers to communicate to people. It just made the universe and that’s it. Maybe even disappeared after that, I don’t know. That would be pandeism. I find that plausible too. Maybe even more so than regular deism. <-----That’s reads much more like a state of confusion than a definition.

Thoughts?

The God of the Bible is the true God, and you could learn a lot by all the effort you put into trying to make yourself disbelieve that fact.

 

[samiam1611]

<—That’s agnostic…without any qualifiers

No, it’s an atheist who doesn’t claim to know it with certainty, and so, in a way, admits there is a bit of faith involved. I believe no deities exist but I do not know it.
See here.
Moving on…

<—Is that “definition” from a dictionary?

I originally read it on Wikipedia, and checked their source, the World Union of Deists.

<-----That’s reads much more like a state of confusion than a definition.

I don’t know if I’d call it a state of confusion…but it isn’t very precise. Here is Wikipedia’s definition, which I should have put in the OP:

“the belief that the Creator of the Universe actually became the Universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity”

Luckily, we have Pandeist Man here to explain it further.

The God of the Bible is the true God, and you could learn a lot by all the effort you put into trying to make yourself disbelieve that fact.

I make no effort whatsoever to disbelieve. none. Disbelief comes naturally to me, it is a default.

This thread is an exercise in being open-minded.

 

[greylorn]

This issue is resolved in Pandeism, which proffers a wholly rational basis for our Creator choosing to become our Universe. Consider: an entity which is alone in it’s existence can experience no imposition of limitations upon it; and so it can not have the knowledge of the subjective experience of facing and overcoming (or failing to overcome) limitations. By entering into a fragmented form of existence wherein it shares in the subjective experience of facing limitations as we do in every moment of our lives, it is rationally able to obtain this experience.

While it resolves the limited issue I addressed, it fails to address larger issues. I just came from delivering an in-depth list of objections to similar ideas, to a private correspondent.

I first came across what you call Pandeism about 20-30 years ago while checking out New Age metaphysics. The core concepts are identical. Like most religions they appeal to a particular human need, or set thereof. Newage and presumably pandeist adherents can believe that they are a little piece of God.

Personally, I find the flaws in such systems to greatly outweigh their benefits, and know myself well enough to conclude that if I am a little piece of some greater entity, that entity is a jerk in which I want no part.

 

[fhansen]

I agree. I would not say this god is necessarily (or at all) superior to a personal god. I just think dei-ish-ism avoids the “made in man’s image” criticism often [rightly ] used on theism.
The problem is that it might help avoid criticism but if we use the fear of criticism as a yardstick we’re then right back to determining who God should be by the very fact of limiting the possibilities-IOW making Him into something we think He should be.

 

[samiam1611]

The problem is that it might help avoid criticism but if we use the fear of criticism as a yardstick we’re then right back to determining who God should be by the very fact of limiting the possibilities-IOW making Him into something we think He should be.

It’s not about avoiding criticism - it’s that the god I am suggesting is not anthromorphic. I consider anthromorphicism to be a flaw (IOW, less likely to be true), and is present in most versions of theism (with a few exceptions, such as pantheism).

Perhaps you do not see that as a flaw - after all, y’all say man was made in God’s image, as if that is a good thing.

I think if there is a god, it is NOTHING like humans. It does not speak to people. It does not forgive people, or judge them when they die. It does not punish, nor reward. It is beyond our comprehension; we can barely even come up with words to describe It.

:whacky:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

It also seems that when “perfection” comes up in conversations like this people don’t always mean the same thing or have the same criteria for something to be perfect making it an almost ambiguous word.

perfect simply meant limitless, infinite or necessary. it is not ambiguous at all. maybe some people misuses the term perfect, but, that’s their problem, not the problem of the term itself.

Ahh, ok, ThinkingSapien is right. We are using different definitions. My definition is very vague…

See, this is what I’m talking about. If ones goal is to only to express irrespective of whether or not any one can interpret the thoughts behind the expression than using any set of words is fine. But if one’s goal is to communicate information with minimal error then it will contribute to that goal if consideration is given not only to what words mean to one’s self but what they mean to the audience of the message.

Were the term something esoteric there would be more room to dismiss this consideration. Had I said “my concept of god is 形容詞” my audience at least understands they don’t know what I mean by this word and can engage in presenting queries to get a better understanding for it. But with “perfect” being a familiar word people are more likely to use their own personal criteria or what ever is the most familiar to them before realizing that the speaker meant something different.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

I can tell you really do not want to address what I said. sorry, I am not going to play by your rules.

Again, is the universe god or not?

A simple yes, or not will do.

Again, my argument given against pandeism (and any theology that thinks god is complex or made of parts) is good. if you’ve questions about any of the steps involved feel to ask.
This is the argument, again:

1- The creator or first principle is the universe.

2- the first principle is made of parts.

3- The parts are ontologically prior to the first principle

which would entail:

4- The universe is not the first principle.

5- and the first principle is not and cannot be made of parts.

You need not play by ‘my’ rules, but you do need to play fairly, and by the rules of logic – which includes avoiding definitional and categorical fallacies, which I do not believe you have done here.

Consider this analogue to your line of questions:

1 Most pharmacy thermometers contain Mercury, yes or no?

2 Mercury has a planetary diameter of several thousand kilometers, yes or no?

3 So it follows that most pharmacy thermometers are of sufficient size to contain an object several thousand kilometers in diameter

The error there is definitional, because Mercury is both an element and a planet – and one might even slip in something there about a God with winged sandals.

The definitional fallacy in your question is a particularly devilish one, for it uses (unwittingly, I am sure) Bill Clinton’s trick of switching between definitions of ‘is’ – which might comparably be set forth as follows:

1 Barack Obama is the Head of State of the United States

2 Barack Obama is a Democrat

3 The United States is a country with a Democrat as Head of State

But

4 The United States is a democracy, wherein any party’s candidate may become Head of State

which would entail

5 A Republican may become Head of State of the United States

6 The United States is not a country with a Democrat as Head of State

And so

7 Barack Obama is not a Democrat

Do you see the problem with suddenly switching between ‘is’ as solely denoting a present state of things, with ‘is’ as denoting the definition of the thing itself? Do you see how that allows a false argument to be dressed in the appearance of truth?

Now I will not be so uncharitable as to assume that you intended a deception here, but I will be pleased to answer your contention if reworded in a way which avoids such fallacies. To wit:

Is our Universe the present state of existence of its Creator (such being an entity of sufficient power to become a Universe), or not?

Yes, yes it is.

Returning to your points of argument:

1 - The Creator of our Universe presently exists as our Universe itself.

Yes. I don’t know what you meant by ‘first principle’ for a ‘principle’ first or otherwise is not an entity which is capable of design and creation except if by a highly unusual use of the word; and so I have never described our Creator as being a ‘principle’ and reject that characterisation until an explanation is provided of how a principle may be a Creator.

2 - Our Creator is made of parts.

No. I have stated before that I am not going to go deeply into quantum mechanics here, but I hope it will be simple enough for me to explain that all manner at base is a wave function, and at the Planck length the supporting wave function is nothing more than a zero point energy field (a singular field of energy fluctuating at the lowest wavelength at which fluctuation is possible, before becoming inherently fuzzy and irresolute). Hence, our Creator is not made of parts; it is a single state which we, with our rough macroscopic filters of perception, perceive as parts. But unless you deny that our Creator is omnipresent, you can not deny that all of the ‘parts’ of our Universe are necessarily contained within it anyway.

3 - The parts are ontologically prior to our Creator.

There are no parts, only an appearance of separateness at macroscopic levels. This appearance is only a present state, to which our Creator is prior.

So you see, using clear definitions, the propositions which you propose this would entail thusly fall away.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

When you imply that there is an intelligence of God that underlies everything, you imply that God is still thinking and able to do what he wants but just lets the universe go so he can be afraid and have courage.

Then let me state clearly, our Creator, having become our Universe, causes itself to become unable to intentionally intervene in the operations of our Universe, so that it may have an experience of existence undisturbed by the imposition of its own interference.

But that is already covered in Christianity. First, our God has given us free will so that would given him the fear that we would defy him, but the courage to go on. Then we have Christ who is God and He was afraid of his coming Crucifxion and had the courage to carry on.

Jesus would be an exemplar of the human condition as experienced by our Creator – but why would it be limited to sharing in the experiential knowledge of but one man? If our Creator is omniscient and omnipresent then it is by definition within every aspect of every man. This, so far as my understanding goes, is already a belief of your own theological model.

And you keep implying that there is still an intelligence instead of the Universe being all there is of God. But if God became the Universe, that means the Universe is him and the views and ideas held within are his.

This does not follow; the mind of our Creator exists solely as a force underlying and sustaining our Universe, and in no way directing it, for such would make pointless the very act of Creation.

Why would the Universe contradict him on a whole. Why aren’t we all Pandeists or at leasts Atheists. The majority of all of humanity have believed in a God that is not from pandeism. Why is that. If we are this pandeist God wouldn’t he have left in us the urge to say we are all God that almost none of us could deny. And why do we have imperfect knowledge. What does it help? God can still be afraid and courageous if he knows everything. Why did he want to be ignorant when he came as life even though his knowledge is " the mind of our Creator underlies the sustenance of every atom" Our instincts which are God given tell us that we need to know the truth and not be ignorant. So why did God who is us make it that way.

Do you have imperfect knowledge? You already accept a theological model wherein you believe your Creator to have given you imperfect knowledge; and imperfect knowledge includes a lack of knowledge of our pandeistic nature. Verily, we came into existence with no knowledge at all, of anything, and virtually all the knowledge that man has won has been through man’s own investigation of our Creation. And our instincts, which have developed in accordance with the design of our Universe, are to attain all manner of information – this we have done, and Pandeism is a step toward the culmination of attainment in the spiritual realm.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

I disagree. Your belief sounds a lot like monotheism blended with some pantheistic concepts. Here’s how I see it:

I am going with the assumption that the laws of the universe/nature could have come about without divine governance. (That’s the atheist in me talking, I suppose.) I am proposing a god who became whatever it was that blew up in the Big Bang. I don’t know if It planned it to turn out like it did, or if it just happened that way. I don’t know if It was trying to end Its existence like Godric the vampire, but things did not go as planned, or if It “knew” ahead of time that by smushing itself into a gravitation singularity, It would rapidly expand and become matter.

I am proposing a god (a Creator) to fill one gap and one gap only that science can’t fill - what was before the Big Bang - how did elementary particles, how did matter, originate. I adopt a naturalistic view from then on. (p.s. I actually believe in naturalism only; this thread is the <1% agnostic in me talking.)

But we must still deal with the question of fortuity; the anthropic principle would apply were we speaking solely of our capacity to exist at all, but we have a further fortuitous capacity to understand the governing dynamics of our Universe which is not explained either by anthropicity, nor by any theistic model, all such models closing the door to the need for such investigation with the pronouncement of their idea of deity. And, as well, there is a temporal fortuity which is not required for our existence anthropically, nor serves but to undermine theistic texts and explanations. These things point toward an intent not simply for life to come about, but to come about and advance in a particular way.

And, if we determine that life is so designed, then we must consider the motivation to create such a Universe, for no entity capable of engaging in such a Creation would rationally do so except that it provides the most efficient route by which it may fulfill a need on its own part.

 

[Pandeist_Man]

While it resolves the limited issue I addressed, it fails to address larger issues. I just came from delivering an in-depth list of objections to similar ideas, to a private correspondent.

I first came across what you call Pandeism about 20-30 years ago while checking out New Age metaphysics. The core concepts are identical. Like most religions they appeal to a particular human need, or set thereof. Newage and presumably pandeist adherents can believe that they are a little piece of God.

Personally, I find the flaws in such systems to greatly outweigh their benefits, and know myself well enough to conclude that if I am a little piece of some greater entity, that entity is a jerk in which I want no part.

I don’t imagine there is any religion which does not begin by appealing to particular human needs. But then, I would suppose as well that scientists discovered the Periodic Table and the DNA code in the course of fulfilling their human needs, so such basis for discovery ought not to be taken as a falsification of it.

Perhaps you are an atheist. If not, your theological model likely presupposes that there exists a deity which is omnipresent and omniscient – in all things and having complete knowledge. If so, then your deity already possesses the characteristic of all people – including the jerks – being part of it, for as Duke University physicist Robert G. Brown ably mathematically demonstrated in his Pandeist Theorem, an omniscient entity whose knowledge was immediate, and which was able to know such things as can not be discerned through outside observation (such as the simultaneous location and trajectory of quantum particles) would be identical to our Universe. That is, in essence, the definition of omniscience.

And believing oneself to be a piece of our Creator is not so ego-boosting a proposition when you recognise that everybody and everything is equally part of our Creator, from the motes of dust to the mites that bite!!

 

[Heuchler]

Then let me state clearly, our Creator, having become our Universe, causes itself to become unable to intentionally intervene in the operations of our Universe, so that it may have an experience of existence undisturbed by the imposition of its own interference.

Jesus would be an exemplar of the human condition as experienced by our Creator – but why would it be limited to sharing in the experiential knowledge of but one man? If our Creator is omniscient and omnipresent then it is by definition within every aspect of every man. This, so far as my understanding goes, is already a belief of your own theological model.

This does not follow; the mind of our Creator exists solely as a force underlying and sustaining our Universe, and in no way directing it, for such would make pointless the very act of Creation.

Do you have imperfect knowledge? You already accept a theological model wherein you believe your Creator to have given you imperfect knowledge; and imperfect knowledge includes a lack of knowledge of our pandeistic nature. Verily, we came into existence with no knowledge at all, of anything, and virtually all the knowledge that man has won has been through man’s own investigation of our Creation. And our instincts, which have developed in accordance with the design of our Universe, are to attain all manner of information – this we have done, and Pandeism is a step toward the culmination of attainment in the spiritual realm.

Its very funny to me how christian your concept of God is. You say God created and became the Universe but is still an underlying force which sustains everything. We say God created the universe and is an underlying force which sustains everything. You say God wants to experience things (and while this is not the reasoning in Christianity) we have the the way in which God becomes one with everybody and it is through the Holy Spirit which is in us and can help guide us. The only leap in logic you have to make is to decide if you believe in Christ and Christianity.

 

[samiam1611]

But we must still deal with the question of fortuity; the anthropic principle would apply were we speaking solely of our capacity to exist at all, but we have a further fortuitous capacity to understand the governing dynamics of our Universe which is not explained either by anthropicity, nor by any theistic model, all such models closing the door to the need for such investigation with the pronouncement of their idea of deity. And, as well, there is a temporal fortuity which is not required for our existence anthropically, nor serves but to undermine theistic texts and explanations. These things point toward an intent not simply for life to come about, but to come about and advance in a particular way.

And, if we determine that life is so designed, then we must consider the motivation to create such a Universe, for no entity capable of engaging in such a Creation would rationally do so except that it provides the most efficient route by which it may fulfill a need on its own part.

While I take issue with labeling a higher power words like intelligent and rational, overall, I definitely am still of the opini

 

[samiam1611]

But we must still deal with the question of fortuity; the anthropic principle would apply were we speaking solely of our capacity to exist at all, but we have a further fortuitous capacity to understand the governing dynamics of our Universe which is not explained either by anthropicity, nor by any theistic model, all such models closing the door to the need for such investigation with the pronouncement of their idea of deity. And, as well, there is a temporal fortuity which is not required for our existence anthropically, nor serves but to undermine theistic texts and explanations. These things point toward an intent not simply for life to come about, but to come about and advance in a particular way.

And, if we determine that life is so designed, then we must consider the motivation to create such a Universe, for no entity capable of engaging in such a Creation would rationally do so except that it provides the most efficient route by which it may fulfill a need on its own part.

While I take issue with labeling a higher power words like intelligent and rational due to the anthromorphic implications, overall, I definitely am still of the opinion that pandeism is more logical and more likely to be true than theism!

So, would it be fair of me to sum it up as the Creator became creation? If so, are you able to say at what point this change happened?

Do you believe humans are a special creation of the Creator, or that we just happened in the natural course of evolution? Did the Creator intend to have creatures intelligent enough to detect It?

What do you think of this issue that as arisen in this thread re: the meaning of the word perfect?

 

[Pandeist_Man]

Its very funny to me how christian your concept of God is. You say God created and became the Universe but is still an underlying force which sustains everything. We say God created the universe and is an underlying force which sustains everything. You say God wants to experience things (and while this is not the reasoning in Christianity) we have the the way in which God becomes one with everybody and it is through the Holy Spirit which is in us and can help guide us. The only leap in logic you have to make is to decide if you believe in Christ and Christianity.

It is very funny to me how Hindu your concept of God is, actually. Some forms of Hinduism report that our Creator (in particular, Vishnu, the one true God in whom all things subsist) created and became our Universe, but is still an underlying force which sustains everything. But in Hinduism, aspects of Vishnu appear as the many Gods (such as Shiva and Krishna and Kali and Ganesh) and can help guide Hindus. This is why many Hindus are willing to accept the deity of Jesus with a bit of a shrug and no feeling of a need to worship him over any other similar examples of Gods among men – indeed, there is considered by some of them a strong correlation of Krishna (sometimes conveyed as Kristna) to Christ, as well as a number of local traditions whereby Jesus came to India in his twenties and learned tenets of Buddhism – such as loving your enemies and turning the other cheek – unheard of in the faiths then prevailing in the Middle East.

Turning, then, to the chief amongst those faiths, Judaism; I suppose it would be ironic to suggest that your concept of God is so like the Jewish concept, excepting that Jews reject any notion that a Messiah has yet come, and bravely maintain that rejection despite centuries of oppression, torture, and regular efforts at genocide. Even past the 1850’s it was the official policy of the Roman Catholic Church that a Jewish child who was baptised could legally be kidnapped from his parents, the baptism making the child ‘Christian,’ and so, making his Jewish parents unfit to raise the child. If any social event may be denoted a miracle, surely it is the resiliance of Judaism against these efforts.

But I digress. Let me assure you, my friend, that I (and though I can not speak for the whole of the Pandeist community on this matter, I know many other Pandeists who will agree) have great love and reverence for exemplary men such as Jesus and Buddha and Gandhi – for these men are of the kind who would not shy from contact with the lepers, who would deign to wash the feet of fellow travellers, who have cared nothing for being tied by wealth and comfort and vanity and material possessions, but made their way in the world seeking knowledge and championing the most reviled and oppressed!! So, yes, Jesus is God, and Buddha is God, and Gandhi and Einstein and Salk are God, as indeed are we all, and their paths were moral and commendable ones which we ought to emulate and venerate; and each of them, like all of us, is eternal life, and each of them, like all of is is the resurrection of mankind and the life of mankind. But not a single event precipitated by any of these figures diminishes or attempts to diminish the status of all of us as being of our Creator. After all did not even Jesus know this well enough to provide that we were all ‘gods,’ that we would outdo his own miracles in our time, and that what we do to the least of our fellows, we in fact do to God?

Your propositions of Christianity simply outline these truths to me, and do not diminish our divine nature, and our responsibility to live up to that nature by following the example of exemplary men like Jesus, and being impeccable to even the least of our brothers — for they too are of our Creator!!

 

[Pandeist_Man]

While I take issue with labeling a higher power words like intelligent and rational due to the anthromorphic implications, overall, I definitely am still of the opinion that pandeism is more logical and more likely to be true than theism!

I’ll take the compliment, but continue to contend that ours is a rationally ordered Universe.

So, would it be fair of me to sum it up as the Creator became creation? If so, are you able to say at what point this change happened?

It is for scientific inquiry to determine the moment, but I think it safe to deem whatever the moment of the Big Bang was, approximately thirteen billion, seven hundred twenty million years ago, as the moment of transition wherein the energy which was our Creator became the energy governed by the governing dynamics of our Universe as then set forth.

Do you believe humans are a special creation of the Creator, or that we just happened in the natural course of evolution? Did the Creator intend to have creatures intelligent enough to detect It?

The laws of physics and chemistry which govern our Universe are such it will inevitably generate bound forms of energy, then light matter from these bound forms, then stars made of massive coagulations of light matter, which then exude heavy atoms, then collections of heavy atoms which both bond into molecules and clump by gravity into non-molecularly bound forms on scales up to the planetary, then complex self-replicating molecular structures supported by the planets thus formed, which evolve to yield highly complex genetic blueprints and an immense diversity of life, until (with equal inevitablity) intelligent life is reached – which then will proceed to discover how to make tools, machines, technology, and eventually (as we are presently doing) to remake itself, improve its own genetic structure, incorporate technology physically into itself, and build machines capable of expressing the same sort of intelligence. Pandeism finds us squarely on that path, to reaching the stars and discovering what other life has followed the same course elsewhere in our galaxy. And, yes, I do believe that it is inevitable that a sufficiently advanced and intelligent peoples will arrive at a pandeistic model (even as one amongst several competing models, for which it is understood that none can be absolutely proved correct).

What do you think of this issue that as arisen in this thread re: the meaning of the word perfect?

On this question, I adhere to the views of Charles Harteshorne – perfection is subjective, and so it is meaningless to speak of it in many dimensions; stagnation is imperfection; inability to change and learn in a Universe capable of generating infinite new experiences is imperfection. Can a deity paint a perfect painting? Write a perfect limerick? Perform perfect oral sex? The designation of our Creator as ‘perfect’ is a meaningless platitude, a hollow compliment by which men mean that it adheres to whatever their own imaginations of it might be.

 

[Garyjohn2]

But theism falls into the same trap. Tragedies happen everyday that defy logic in a world where there’s supposed to be a God out there who’s all-powerful and cares about us. But when we ask “Why, God, why?,” we’re told things like “God’s will is mysterious, and his ways inscrutable.” We’re told our simply mortal logic isn’t fit to make sense of God’s wisdom.

Why does it make less sense that God created the Universe and walked away? Who are you to insist that this God just wouldn’t do a silly thing like that?

No, I don’t think theism falls into the same trap. I do not think there are tragedies that defy logic of a loving God. Not at all. Suffering has a purpose, and a very important purpose. A parent that coddles their child and does not let them experience suffering is not the most loving parent. God’s ways are mysterious and beyond us…but the concept and value of suffering is something we can comprehend easily if we choose to. The eternal rewards of heaven will make even the most devastating tragedy on earth make complete sense, and not seem nearly as tragic as from our current point of view.

I think it makes less sense that God created the Universe and walked away because I see God’s involvement in the Universe. I can insist God did not do such a silly thing because he has reached out to and visited his people throughout the ages. This might not have been the answer you were looking for to satisfy you, but it is my answer! I’d be happy to expound upon it if you’d like.