What do you think of this version of pandeism?

[Skadi]

If a Creator Incarnates in His creation, He immediately, by rational reason alone, ceases to be the Creator, and becomes the creation.

No creation can exist without the Creator.

One relies on the other, and the other relies on Him.

.

But if the creator is already his creation then manifesting himself within creation does not force him to go anywhere, he was already there.

 

[Servant19]

But if the creator is already his creation then manifesting himself within creation does not force him to go anywhere, he was already there.

Hi Skadi

If we think on a more tangible, empirical level, by definition, the Creator is a more complex and magnitudinally greater entity than His creation.

If you think Painter and painting, you will notice that a painting cannot create other paintings. If the Painter was to become the painting, then he most definitely is no longer the Painter.

Sculptor…sculpture.

I think we can utilise the logics and signs that God has given us to discern truth about things which are by necessity outside the realms of our complete understanding.

Reason and rationality are essentially laws borne out of empiricism. When an ant is dictated by the law of gravity and is “drawn” towards the earth, reason tells us that “higher” physical beings, like humans are also dictated by the same rational explanation for being “drawn” to the earth as well.

Extrapolation of reasonable concepts is the way that humans can discern the truths about visible and invisible realities.

Just my humble perspective for your kind consideration

.

 

[Nine_Two]

I agree interesting and plausible. Ill have to look into this idea more.

I’m curious on what basis is this?

Plausibility would indicate there is some evidence that leads us in this direction even if there is nothing conclusive or concrete. I’m just curious what evidence points toward this idea?

 

[Skadi]

Hi Skadi

If we think on a more tangible, empirical level, by definition, the Creator is a more complex and magnitudinally greater entity than His creation.

If you think Painter and painting, you will notice that a painting cannot create other paintings. If the Painter was to become the painting, then he most definitely is no longer the Painter.

Sculptor…sculpture.

I think we can utilise the logics and signs that God has given us to discern truth about things which are by necessity outside the realms of our complete understanding.

Reason and rationality are essentially laws borne out of empiricism. When an ant is dictated by the law of gravity and is “drawn” towards the earth, reason tells us that “higher” physical beings, like humans are also dictated by the same rational explanation for being “drawn” to the earth as well.

Extrapolation of reasonable concepts is the way that humans can discern the truths about visible and invisible realities.

Just my humble perspective for your kind consideration

.

I think we have a misunderstanding of basis here, namely the definition of the word God. I am a soft-polythiest and so ultimately a panetheist, and my definition of god does not necessitate omnipotent power. So from my viewpoint there is no problem with the “IS ALL”, the Panthiestic and impersonal god made of all spiritual energy, becoming the universe. The “Is All” is not a conscious creator like YHWH is seen as.

What I think your trying to say is that if god became the universe he is no longer god, am I correct?

 

[Skadi]

I’m curious on what basis is this?

Plausibility would indicate there is some evidence that leads us in this direction even if there is nothing conclusive or concrete. I’m just curious what evidence points toward this idea?

I see no logical phalacy with this from my Solft-Polythiestic worldview so I’m simpl interested in reading more about this position. I do not believe this but I also do not think it impossible.

 

[Servant19]

I think we have a misunderstanding of basis here, namely the definition of the word God. I am a soft-polythiest and so ultimately a panetheist, and my definition of god does not necessitate omnipotent power. So from my viewpoint there is no problem with the “IS ALL”, the Panthiestic and impersonal god made of all spiritual energy, becoming the universe. The “Is All” is not a conscious creator like YHWH is seen as.

What I think your trying to say is that if god became the universe he is no longer god, am I correct?

Basically, yes, that is correct

But I also think that it denies the possibility of infinite “dimensions” of existence, since everything is contained within what is empirically containable.

To a plant, all that it can possibly fathom is contained within its sphere of knowledge, but it can in no wise discern the reality of the human being, but human beings exist and are not part of the plant Kingdom.

We are essentially plants in the eyes of God, but a god that becomes the human being or even it’s creation denies the gradations of created reality.

I’m not sure if this makes sense…my language may be muddled, anyway let me know if anything needs clarification friend

.

 

[Skadi]

Basically, yes, that is correct

But I also think that it denies the possibility of infinite “dimensions” of existence, since everything is contained within what is empirically containable.

To a plant, all that it can possibly fathom is contained within its sphere of knowledge, but it can in no wise discern the reality of the human being, but human beings exist and are not part of the plant Kingdom.

We are essentially plants in the eyes of God, but a god that becomes the human being or even it’s creation denies the gradations of created reality.

I’m not sure if this makes sense…my language may be muddled, anyway let me know if anything needs clarification friend

.

I understand, and I agree I don’t like putting limits on the scope of existance. We just have fundimental differences on the nature of the ultimate divinity.

But from a Monothiestic point of view you are entirely correct, a painting is not a painter, I just don’t see the ultimate reality as a painter.

 

[Servant19]

I understand, and I agree I don’t like putting limits on the scope of existance. We just have fundimental differences on the nature of the ultimate divinity.

But from a Monothiestic point of view you are entirely correct, a painting is not a painter, I just don’t see the ultimate reality as a painter.

Believe it or not, neither do I

.

 

[Nine_Two]

I see no logical phalacy with this from my Solft-Polythiestic worldview so I’m simpl interested in reading more about this position. I do not believe this but I also do not think it impossible.

Fair enough. Thank you for your response.