Talk:Pandeism/Archive 1

title change

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was not moved. kotra (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pandeism → Pan-deism &mdash; The title should be pan-deism or Pan-Deism. Pandeism is confusing, since it could be read as pande-ism, when the concept is "deism" that has an aspect of "pantheism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.100.3.85 (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. Most uses in the literature are "Pandeism", and this doesn't seem to have caused any confusion. Earliest use cited in the article is not hyphenated, and I'd say that the Charles Hartshorne usage is dispositive of the question. bd2412  T 08:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why isn't it Francis E. Peters usage "dispositive"? The early uses should not count in this proposal because they are in German, and Germans are not big hyphenaters.
 * What he said. We use the name used by the sources. I've never seen the hyphenated form before, and no evidence is provided that it's more commonly used than the current title. Jafeluv (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Lots of people use words wrong or in an unclear way, which does not mean Wikipedia should to.
 * What they said. Seriously, the union of the two comments above is exactly what I planned to write here, except that "dispositive" is a far more elegant word than I would have found.  Wikipedia isn't the place to right (perceived) wrongs in orthography. Knepflerle (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pandeism without the hyphen can have several meanings or be interpreted several ways. Look at Pandeism (disambiguation). Pan-deism has only one right interpretation. No confusion!
 * Oppose WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. And why aren't you signing your comments? 70.29.212.226 (talk) 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Scientific Pandeism
Scientific Pandeism is a distinct form of Pandeism that incorporates aspects of Atheism. It is the belief that everything and everyone in the universe is connected, but at the same time there is no God or Deus nor are there any supernatural elements to the universe. This is based on Scientific opinion that everything was once condensed into a ball of matter, the premise for the scientific theory of the Big Bang. As such Scientific Pandeists believe everything came from one original source. As such they believe in the concept of Pandeism without the concept of the deity itself, they are also naturalist in the sense that they believe that there are no supernatural elements in and/or transcending the universe.

I really do not agree with this section.

And where is the discussion of the sexual nature of Pandeism? That is one of its hallmarks, that Pandeism is a very sex-positive position. 198.100.3.137 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I'd propose
Pandeism or Pan-Deism (derived from Greek πάν, 'pan' = 'all' and Latin deus = God, in the sense of deism), is a term used at various times to describe religious beliefs. Since at least as early as 1859, it has delineated syncretist concepts incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that God is identical to the Universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the Universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly "the belief that God precedes the Universe and is the Universe's creator, [and] that the Universe is currently the entirety of God", with some adding the contention that "the Universe will one day coalesce back into a single being, God".

The general idea of pandeists is that the Creator shares in all experiences that occur in the Universe. This includes all of the positive and the negative, so the moral obligation of the pandeist is to have as much pleasurable experience as possible. It is from this basis that pandeism has become the most sex-positive position, spiritually.

198.100.3.137 (talk) 22:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

compromise title change request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. The last move request with exactly the same reasoning was just closed a week earlier, with zero supporters. Wikipedia does not decide what the optimal way of naming things would be, it follows the common usage in English, which in this case is clearly not the proposed title. WP:SNOW applies. Jafeluv (talk) 23:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Pandeism → PanDeism &mdash; Okie well this is a compromise proposal, in order to prevent the title from being confusing by the title being read as pande-ism, when the concept is actually Pantheistic Deism. 198.100.3.85 (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:NOR 70.29.208.69 (talk) 21:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:Neologisms LjL (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not the place to try to work out what something should be called; is there evidence that it is called by this CamelCase? I doubt it, but am willing to be persuaded. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:11, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per the above. I highly doubt that this is a regular usage at all, and frankly I see no indication of people being confused in the manner that you fear. Even if they were, it is not our job to prescribe new names for old ideas in order to prevent confusion. bd2412  T 23:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The Pandeism Fish
A theory being put forth by pandeists is that the adoption of a "fish" shaped symbol by other faiths is in truth a subconscious confession of the underlying truth of the pandeistic model.

Symbology:
Symbology is important to any school of thought as it provides an abbreviated way to convey affiliation, as well as in some instances to communicate a shorthand glimpse of the doctrine itself.

One such symbol is the fish. Now this might bring to mind a particular belief system in these particular times, but in fact the use of a sparse, fish-reminiscent pair of curved lines, just touching at one end and surpassing an intersection at the other, dates back over three-thousand years, pre-originating even the assignment of Pisces to the Zodiac.

The Christian adoption of the fish-as-symbol, the icthys, may raise an eyebrow. There was already, after all, the cross. And, though miracles or parables involving fish come as readily in the Bible as in the formative texts of, for example, Buddhism or Hinduism, the fish is not shown in any of these traditions to be a particularly venerated class of creature. And yet.... well, there is something about that shape which makes it especially appropriate as a symbol for Pandeism -- and if the pandeistic model is true, this would even go so far as to explain why members of theistic faiths (including, yes, Christianity) have subconsciously gravitated to a symbol greatly explicatory of Pandeism!!

The Pandeistic Model:
Consider, first, the pandeistic model; the Creator becomes the Creation, and ceases to have a conscious separate existence; in the beginning (before our physical Universe exists, there is one entity, of substantial (but abstract) intellect, and having substantial capacity to control its own unformed energy. It is not infinite, but neither is it necessarily bounded -- one might describe it as "open-ended" in its creative capacity. This entity, for purposes of acquiring certain knowledge incapable of being generated for its current form, transforms itself, compresses all that it is into a singularity and then bursts forth into a new form, an unconscious will supporting the continued existence of a physical Universe, guided by laws of physics set forth in that very moment of Creation, with a grand unknown outcome but with governing dynamics designed to bring about complexity, culminating in the products of self-accelerating intelligent life (which, in turn, is capable of discovering those governing dynamics, those laws of physics and mathematics, and using them to build mightily upon the capacities delivered to it by nature)....

Anyone who has seen the map of the cosmic background radiation will note the rather oval shape assigned to it by the instruments reading it (though this oval is the product of an illusion, the true shape of the Universe likely being more spherical). Another sort of "oval" can be generated by envisioning our Universe is bursting forth from a singularity, and then experiencing a long period of expansion (perhaps hundreds of billions of years), reaching an apogee of sorts, a point of maximum expansion, from which it draws back in much the same way, returning to a point of singularity. Such expansion and contraction need not even occur in the three physical dimensions common to our observation, but may occur at higher dimensions, possessed of a curvature which exceeds our present observational capacity.

The Pandeism Fish:
And so, wehn we combine these ideas -- the pre-Universe Creator condensing and collapsing itself into a singularity, envisioned as an open-ended triangle pointing towards the moment of Creation; leading into the oval of our Universe as it is, or as it presents itself to us physically, and as it may operate on a larger cosmological sense, we find ourselves presented with a not unfamiliar shape:

______________________________________________________________ |%PANDEISM-FISH%MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM| |MMMMMMMMMWMMWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM| |MMMMMMMMMMWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMW*****^O""'`o^****MMMMMMMMMMMMM| \MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX*.. ** *0* * ** * **_*..*XMMMMMMMMM| \MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMZ* //***o** ** ***_**..// *******MMMMMM| ` \ @MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX** **--*-* **** - -* **\\ ` ` * ****MMMM| ` `\@\MMMMMMMMMMMM* * **_ * *** ` * * * * * *` ***O** ***MMM| |@ -@ .w@MMMMMMP*****o* ** ** ** ** o *o~ * * * * ** ***o*MM| `-@ @ \@`\@%F#/**** *** ******\\\\\-\\\\* *** *// **** ***\#] ` ) ` ) ` ) }+{ `` ` ` *` ` ` ` * ` ` ` ` ` ` * *` ` ` * ` }+ ???  ,@ / ./-@/@#H%\**o-*** * *...* *\ \\\\\\ \\** **** o**** */#]  / ,_ @ @MMMMMMMb** * *O* * * * o**** **** *** ** *O* ** .*M|  @ -,/@MMMMMMMMMMMM* * '* ** ** ** *o** _** *** ** * * ..*MMM| , ,/MMMMWMMMMMMMMMMM* ..*** *0*** - ** .. *//_** *** * *MMMM| , /MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM*o****// * * * *o * * ** ** * *XMMMMM|  /MMMMMMMMWMMMWMMMMMMMMMMX** ** * * * ** * *0 * * *ZMMMMMMMMM| |MMMMMWMMMMMMMWMMMMMWMMMMMMMMX* **. * * *o// * *MMMMMMMMMMMMM| |MMMMMMMMMMMWWWWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX&-x_,-/-XMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM| |MMMMMMWWWWWWWWWWWWMMMMWWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM| |WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW|

Now here's where things get really interesting, conceptually. Recall that pandeism accounts for all theistic phenomena -- from all faiths -- as encounters between the limited human mind and the unconscious experience of our Creator underlying the continued sustenance of our Universe. All revelations received and miracles observed can be so explained, without resort to incongruent beliefs in things such as "evil spirits" being permitted to provide "false" revelations to some, while others are permitted to receive "true" revelations. And this accounts, as well, for the human predilection to grasp blindly towards the underlying metaphysical explanation, dressed up though it may become by human biases, fears and aspirations.

Synthesis:
Consider, again, that this fish-shaped device symbolises no petty miracle or mediocre allegory, but instead models an explanation for all observed reality, an explanation which, should the pandeistic model be true, would resonate in the unconscious mind underlying our continued existence, and through that channel into the subconscious mind of humanity. And so it could be said that the adoption by many faiths of the vague outline of a fish -- of the pandeism fish -- indicates this true underlying nature of our Universe, one which accounts for all the graspings of those very faiths!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.2 (talk • contribs)

Some resources:

Pandeism Fish ([MySpace]) Pandeism Fish (at Knuje's Pandeism [Blog]) Pandeism Fish defined by [Urban Dictionary] Pandeism Fish post at [LiveJournal] Pandeism Fish post at [Interfaith Forums] Pandeism Fish post at [Christian Forums] Pandeism Fish claim on [Jyte] (that there is a rational [explanation] for the Pandeism Fish)

The YouTube PanDeism Channel The Pandeist Theorem by Robert G. Brown (excerpt from A Theorem Concerning God) Pandeism with Rusty Nails (old, dormant [blog] on the theory) The Parallels of Pandeism by Bernardo Kastrup Encyclopedia Britannica's page on pandeism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.17 (talk) 21:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Deistical Platitude Vamping and "Providence."
Deistical Platitude Vamping and "Providence."

To the Editor of "The Freethinker";

Sir, —Although preternatural phantasm hatchers are rampant just now, I fear the poverty of the type-case shall bid fair to deprive their reputations of immortality; but as there may be some susceptible individuals occupying n transitional position between Atheism and Theism, and who may therefore incline to give credence to such philosophism, I trust you will extend your courtesy to admit this criticism of your correspondent, Mr. C. Edgley's communication, to your columns.

Dealing generally with the whole communication, I incline to think that the author may be felicitated (or reprehended) on the facility with which he has there reduced fiction-spinning to a definite system. He has dealt first with "Jehovah," shorn him of his " attributes," exhibited him per se, and industriously set to work and put them on again. Dealing with Mr. Edgley's comments successively in the order of their occurrence, we have first to face the " attributes-of-God" phantasm. Here your correspondent carefully negates some flimsily-suppositional "attributes" by telling us that "He had neither form nor sex," which is an unthoughtful and loose statement, although it can be conceived with Mr. Edgley that even a fetish cannot very well have sex if it have no form. Anyhow, if Mr. Edgley is unable to show that some varieties—"allotropic modifications," if he likes—of his Deity have no form and yet have sex—a demonstration which must require some smart juggling with theological fallacies—it is evident he has needlessly complicated a needlessly intricate conception, by his use of the word "sex." Before we leave the complications—if we can get clear of them at all—I must ask your correspondent, since he has made recurrently a gratuitous use of these formulae, why he uses the terms "he," "himself," and "Jehovah" with the possessive case terminal attached, in the face of his artlessly-frank dictum, pronounced in the same breath, that "He is like magnetism—a power felt, but not seen."

Of course Atheists in general will laughingly acquiesce in the statement that tuck a deity, "I should say, knows neither love nor hatred." But here we have " Jehovah" shorn of all possible attributes, except one, common to energy in every form, and which is obvious—to physicists, at any rate—and raised to the status of an abstract mechanical power, made congruent with magnetic force, and all sequential considerations disregarded with most summary indifference. But, unfortunately, and I say it with all regret, Mr. Edgley has not seen fit to stop here, but goes on in palpable disobedience to the injunction of the proverb, " Ne tutor supra crepidam ," and accordingly continues: "He thinks and controls." Epitomising, we arrive, now, at the refreshingly-naive proposition: "Jehovah ...... has neither form nor sex, but is like magnetism ...... He thinks and controls" (italics mine). Well, sir, I must confess this is too deep for me. I, for instance, always thought that "Mind," a function of which is thinking, invariably goes "hand-in-hand" with "Matter"—as an attribute, one might say, of certain "organised" forms of matter in the massive form—an essential conception in psychological accordance with the Science of Mind.

Reasoning necessarily from analogy, then, psychology, and consequently scientific Agnosticism, I incline to think must say : " Thinking without ' form ' is conceptibly impossible." Consequently, our summarised quotation from Mr. Edgley is absurd. Certainly the conception embodied in it is unrepresented and unnecessary, and that seals its fate as a philosophical hypothesis, or even speculation. The whole extent of these communications of Mr. Edgley is so palpably choke full of fallacies and preposterous premises— psychologically so, philosophically so, and (in the light of Mr. Edgley's last paragraph, for instance) scientifically so, that it is almost impossible, in decent space, to deal adequately with his comments. If the fable of an ancient fictionist, relative to the surreptitious abstraction by " the Lord God" of a rib from an individual in a very deep sleep, ran instead : "And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took some of his brains," and closed up a Torcellian vacuum " instead thereof," one might account for the ever-present, ever-varying mass of theological phantasmagoria, which suggests a slight modification of the lines of W. S. Gilbert:—-

A thing of shreds and patches, Of legends, tales, and snatches;

and for the cognate deistical or pan-deistical emanations of such quasi-theologians as (to take a contemporaneous example) your correspondent. As it is, there is nothing for it but to wade warily forward. "I am convinced," says your correspondent, "that matter has always existed." So was Aristotle; now-a-days the inference is axiomatic (except among some ignorant superstitionists ; but these, of course, are negligible). But he proceeds, still in disobedience to our Latin injunction, "and probably the planets also." The stars, presumably, are too insignificant when compared with the great planets, and visually greater moon, to merit consideration (!). "Jehovah did not create matter, but he has been existent with it for all time." The off-hand asseriiyeness of this dictum is enough to suggest to a "simpleminded orthodox" theologian a possibility of the previous occurrence of an audience between "Jehovah" and Mr. Edgley on this question. It will appear a bold statement to most, and, to the Atheist, such ignorance, such despairably absolute ignorance of all scientific method, of all mode of logical inference, of all criteria of representative hypothesis, and consequently of all philosophical conception, must appear commensurable only to the efficiency of the trammels of philosophism and theological superstition. Your readers will probably be aware that storms do not purify " probably also the sea." These have, of course, rather the converse effect (if any) on the sea. During wind-storms, for instance (irrespective of direction), suspended solid matter will doubtless be mechanically brought in contact with, and be taken up by, the sea water ; whereas during heavy rains the effect will be more practical. In this case we shall have any soluble salts, etc., including, of course, all alkalis, and acids wherever exposed to contact—in the atmosphere or on land—dissolved during the rain storm, and ultimately carried to the sea by rivers and streams as (highly diluted) saline and acid solutions. This is, of course how the sea became salt; but any purifying effect has ceased thousands of years ago at least. As to the spontaneous heating up of "certain rocks," etc., students, in order to appreciate the "amateurishness" of the idea, must be acquainted with the data and constants, etc., supporting the theories out of which Mr- Edgley thinks he has knocked the bottoms. In reference to another remark of his, 1 must say scientists write tolerably clearly of their theories, etc., most of which they can by now symbolise by mathematical formula, but cannot be expected, when describing advanced hypotheses to "dance to the comprehensions" of the uninitiated and ignorant. With reference to the bad effects of droughts, storm?, and diseases being counteracted by good effects—as stated by Mr. Edgley— the fact remains that bad effects are sensibly produced, and, if we admit existence of the controlling, thinking, omnipresent deity of your correspondent, it is right to regard such responsible for resorting to such drastic measures to counteract or control the results of his own handiwork, instead of arranging so that this tinkering with consequences would not be necessary.

Skipping most of Mr. Edgley's communications as irrelevant and speculative, and coming down to the last paragraph of his last letter, we come across an astounding statement no less, in fact, than that he has, with very simple apparatus evidently, arrived at results in discordance with the second law of motion! Bat the description is elliptical, and, alas, the results are based on imperfect experiment. If he procures bar magnets of exactly the same strength, and disposes them at exactly equal distances from the iron ball, which must turn about its axis with the minimum of friction, he will find on revolving the ball that it will practically obey the second law of motion, as given in any text-book on physics, if the magnetic bars be placed in opposite directions, all with their north-seeking, or all with their south-seeking poles towards the ball. But even if these precautions be not observed, the magnet forces which condition the behavior of the metal sphere must nob be confounded with gravitational force : they are easily interpreted by the theory of electro-polar molecules, which also applies to magnetic induction. But all this last is, of course, beside the question, so far as Mr. Edgley is involved.

J. St. J. Higgins.

source

July 17, 1898, p. 460-461 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.34 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Pandeism is a trope
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/Pandeism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.135 (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Duplication of effort here
I've noticed, there's a LOT of material duplicated between the "Pantheistic form of deism" section and the "Etymology" section. DeistCosmos (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Missing the logical basis of the pandeistic model
What this article is missing is an account of the logical basis of the pandeistic model.

Pandeism derives from a logical and rational examination of our Universe itself, to determine the necessary and supportable capacities of an entity responsible for such Creation. In so doing, the theory follows Occam's razor and prizes rational simplicity; that is, it establishes the characteristics that are demonstrably necessary, and it discards all characteristics that are unnecessary, in explaining the existence of our Universe as we experience it. And so, it concludes that such a Creator would need to be exactly intelligent enough and powerful enough to execute such a Creation, and no more. That the power necessary to create our Universe is both the minimal and maximal extent of the Creator's power is necessitated by the need for a rational Universe to be the product of a rational Creator -- one having a rational and compelling motivation to create, for any rational entity capable of fulfilling its needs more efficiently will do so. Following from this analysis, Pandeism asks:

Is the Creator in which you believe powerful enough to set forth the Universe as we experience it -- in every particular -- while needing do nothing more than set forth the energy of this Universe and the governing dynamics which control the behavior of that energy?

Pandeism then holds that the simplest kind of Creator capable of setting forth such a Creation fully accounts for miracles, and similar metaphysical events such as visions, supposed revelations, prophecies, egrigori, spiritual emotions, and development of scripture, which are reported by adherents to all theistic faiths, as unconscious manifestations of the power of the Deus which underlies the Universe. Thus miracles happen and prayers appear to be answered not because "God" is intervening on behalf of the person seeking assistance, but because that person taps the power of the Deus, but under the illusion that it is the conscious work of a higher power. The universality of these phenomena among people of all difference faiths is is posited as a proof of pandeism as a wider, underlying truth, which explains all such phenomena without need to resort to things such as "evil spirits" to explain why members of contradictory faiths report the same kind of miracles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.11.29 (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, the sources cited in the article talk about what it is but not how you get there. The Institute for Pandeism Studies goes into all this on their website but I don't know that that source has any followability here.... DeistCosmos (talk) 17:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs more links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.192.108 (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

This article only includes fifty sources. That is fewer sources than any other article in all of Wikipedia, and so, this article must be deleted immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.119.87 (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Criticism insufficient?
Shouldn't there be more than one source of criticisms for pandeism? The criticism section is completely 'words for words' by another single person.74.216.15.80 (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think two sources of criticism are provided, one Christian, one Islamic, though I've seen Catholic criticism carrying the core conceit of the Islamic criticism here. Naturally, you may add more criticisms as you wish, but remember this is not criticipedia. DeistCosmos (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

The important criticism to include is, Pandeism is a dangerously false doctrine created by Satan to deceive people and turn them away from their Lord, Jesus Christ. Pandeism is the most dangerous of the false doctrines, moreso than Islam, moreso than those of the Catholics and the Mormons, and the Deists, and the Pantheists, because of the insular circularity of its argument against the truth of Scripture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.217.192.211 (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

We must begin with First Principles.
We must begin with First Principles. What can we know, and how may we know it? Firstly, there is an epistemological question as to how we may know anything at all. In the DesCartesian sense, we know that we exist because we are thinking about it, and so we must exist insofar as we experience our own contemplation of it. There would seem along with ourselves to be at least one entity external to our immediate experience of ourselves because we are met with thought which seems not to be originating in our own minds. Now it could be true that all of our sensory perceptions are illusions created to test our reactions or some similar purpose, but this requires that there be at least one source of intelligence external to our own experience of self, to be imposing that experience on us (though even then we can not exclude the possibility that we are merely an isolated expression within a larger mind appearing to us as this seemingly other intelligent being).

But speculation about an illusory Universe raises the question, how can we know our experience of our Universe to be real? Now, there are precisely two possibilities about the reality of our Universe as it presents itself to us. Either it is absolutely real, or it is not, for if any part of our perception of our Universe is an illusion, an impenetrable deception, then the acknowledged presence of unreality means that nothing may be logically taken as real. But we will backtrack for a moment here and concede that even if our perception of our Universe is simply an illusion being imposed upon us, it is what is being presented to us to be taken as real, and so ought to be treated as real. But absent affirmative proof of an illusory capacity of our Universe, we have no reason to assume it to be anything but real in any event.

We have two sources of information. Our senses, and our logical and mathematical contemplations. It is dubious to suggest that we may draw conclusions based on our senses alone, in part because we suffer from grave problems of scale. There are events vital to our understanding of our existence occurring at scales far too great and too small to be perceptible by man, and it must be confessed that assumptions about our Universe which fail to observe a proper awareness of these can be dismiss in the first instance. So far as our current capacity to observe informs us, we humans are approximately 43% of the way from the largest scale of observation -- that of our entire visible Universe -- to the smallest, that being the subquark.

But I submit that investigation of the nature of our Universe reveals it to be the product of an act of design. We are able to observe that we human beings are made out of a collection of interacting organs, that these organs are made out of cells, and that these cells are made out of molecules -- and indeed every tangible thing which we are able to observe or interact with is similarly made out of molecules; and these molecules have particular properties reflective of the atoms of which they are themselves made, and there is no molecule in our Universe but one made from atoms. And we are further able to observe that there are many kinds of atoms, almost all of which are created by stellar fusion and spat out of dying stars but that these kinds adhere to a strict set of rules -- which are in turn dictated by their composition of subatomic particles, and so forth down past the level of those subquarks we mentioned before.

It is a remarkable thing that at each level of substance, the material at issue is able to self-organize in accordance without the governing dynamics of our Universe (things such as the strength of gravity and the speed of light and the combination of attractive and repulsive forces between protons and electrons. I'll not belabor here the fineness of calculation needed to permit subatomic particles to form lint atoms, which form stars spitting out heavy atoms in their death throes, heavy atoms forming the complex self-replicating molecules of life, and eventually intelligent life, and eventually something even beyond that. But even this is not what I rest the proposition of design upon; for not only is our Universe fundamentally complex enough to generate this level of complexity; it is at the same time fundamentally simple enough for intelligent beings to figure out that these forces are what is at play, and to use them to invent things like light bulbs and calculators and computers and masseurs particle colliders.

I'll give one very specific example. We have determined by observing the light signatures of distant galaxies that our Universe is expanding at a rate consistent with origin in a single explosive expansion from a singularity having occurred approximately 13.72 billion years ago. We have observed as well that there exists a microwave background radiation in our Universe indicative of the same origin. But given sufficient time those galaxies will recede beyond detectibility and that microwave background radiation will evaporate entirely; were we not fortunate enough to develop the tools by which to measure these things before they became undetectable to us, we would neve know or have any reason to imagine the age of our Universe -- suggesting that our Universe was designed to essentially inform us of its age and origin.

And we have only in the past few years acquired the ability to confirm the long-suspected existence of habitable worlds within the conceivable range of our technological reach. These worlds call to us for exploration and colonisation, perhaps an entire galaxy able to be made man's.

Now, having established a reasonable basis for believing ours to be a Created Universe, we turn to the characteristics of our Creator. There are THREE which are absolutely necessary: it must have sufficient power to supply and control the incomprehensible energy of our Universe; it must have sufficient intelligence to design the governing dynamics which result in that energy taking the increasingly complex material forms observed; and it must have sufficient rationality to create a Universe which operates rationally, building itself towards these evident ends.

And let me be absolutely clear here, if a theological model exists by which these three assumptions suffice to account for all of the observations man is able to make, then no other assumptions may logically be added, no matter how strongly they might serve our sense of importance. This is as simple a proposition as stating that footprints in the sand most likely reveal that a person walked there. If a person capable of walking sufficiently explains what is observed, then there is no basis for assuming that the leaver of the footprints was able to fly as well, or that it possessed any particular set of loves or hates.

And here we come to the theological theory of Pandeism. A Creator with sufficient power and intelligence to create by becoming, and rationally motivated to do so by the desire to obtain the experiential knowledge of existing as our Universe, a Universe inevitably containing intelligent life which travels amongst the many habitable worlds provided for it.

Now, the acid test,the sixty four million dollar question. Is there anything in our Universe which can not be accounted for by this model? Theists tend to point to their respective scriptures and the events described in them, to reports of faith affirming miracles or visions or the like, and to emotional appeals begging that absent an intervening deity, wrongs will not be punished. But because there are many contradictory accounts of this sort, and because the are and have been many millions of people who are isolated from ever hearing about any given theistic path, additional assumptions must be piled on to explain this, usually involving the additional creation of contingent evil spirits, or of past or future lives, or of varying degrees of life after death.

But if the assumptions underlying the pandeistic model are correct, then we are all fragments of an incomprehensibly powerful and intelligent Creator, and so all of the things which theists point to -- scripture, miracles, revelations, prophecies, spiritual emotions, visions, dreams, egrigori, efficacious prayer, all of these, are simply expressions of the power of our Creator as touched by and filtered by our limited (if sometimes spiritually talented) human minds. I don't doubt that theists tire of having this pointed out to them as much as I tire of explaining it, but the principle remains that every theistic explanation inherently requires fatally more assumptions to account for the same proof (and most leave substantial proof unaccounted for altogether). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.199.35 (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Caps in Pandeism and Universe
A Pandeist would likely capitalize Pandeism and Pandeist, as well as Universe. So Pandeism at least ought to be capitalized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.146 (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The rest of the words, no. As for pandeism, I can understand why you might think so, but I don't think it is a proper noun. I will go check and verify that point, however, that is a legitimate question.  We always use a neutral point of view for capitals.  It doesn't matter what a pandeist would do, it is an issue of our manual of style. And to be clear, I'm a deist, so not every one who holds those believes would necessarily capitalize them.  I never have, but again, I will verify and adjust as necessary.   Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've checked several sources and with one very experienced admin here, almost all say it should not be capitalized, one source said it was optional but not standard. In short, common usage dictates it is not capitalized just as we don't capitalize other generic names for philosophies, spiritual or otherwise.  Dennis Brown  -  2&cent;   &copy;  22:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

"Why Pandeism is Better than Theism"
The following blog post, Why Pandeism is Better than Theism by Max Andrews, spells out all the fundaments of Pandeism, and if it is deemed an appropriate source for information about the subject ought to be fully incorporated/merged into the information here. There is, additionally, lively discussion by the author and other correspondants in the comments following the article.

Prohibited, as it apparently is, to copy the whole blog post here, I refer to these points:
 * That our Universe is presumptively finite, because we can not prove infinitudes.
 * That Pandeism assumes only a Creator sufficiently powerful and intelligent to set forth our Universe as we experience it.
 * That even a non-pandeistic Creator must have the power to create pandeistically, so it is impossible to assume from our finite experience of our Universe that Creation was not itself accomplished pandeistically.
 * That Pandeism thusly requires the fewest assumptions of any faith to account for the proof presented, and is logically presumptively true against any additional assumptions made without additional proof.
 * That in this way, Pandeism fully accounts for all theological events -- miracles, scriptures, revelations, prophecies, faith healing, spiritual love, oracles, visions -- as ego-filtered manifestations of a Creator having become our Universe, without requiring any assumptions of action or intent on the part of such Creator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.145.2.130 (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Max Andrews has deleted this blog post. It might still be findable with some archiving service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.160.20.145 (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a douche move. Probably clashed with his apologetics. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

More information
Bill M. Tracer in Philosophy, May 18, 2011 wrote a lengthier essay with the following paragraph:

Cosmological Pandeism (In this view there is also both a material universe and a spiritual aspect, but unlike Theistic Universalism and Classic Deism, this ideology includes the concept that God and the Material Universe are one, intimately interconnected and that essentially the spiritual domain and the material universe are not really separate from one another, at all. Some within the broad category of Cosmological Pandeism accept the Multiverse concept of M-Theory and as a consequence of God as having at least an 11 dimensional perceptional awareness of the Space/Time continuum, thus transcending time as we know it. As a result of this transcendent temporal relationship to the universe, all of time is as one single instant to such a Pandeistic God. Certain aspects of esoteric and mystic views discussed below can be found in some Cosmological Pandeistic ideologies.) Certain Liberal Christian denominations, Universal Unitarians, those of the Unity Church, Theosophists, and other so called "New Ager" types embrace many of the principal beliefs in this view.

And Dave Gaddis wrote on Unified Deism on Sunday, January 06, 2013 an essay stating:

If I were forced to name my conception of God, I would call it Essential Pandeism. Essential, in this context, means core or basic. Pandeism, literally, means "All is God." Traditional Pandeism makes claims about God that I cannot support, specifically the claim that God blew himself up into particles of energy to become the universe. First, I see no reason why God would need to render itself "dead" in the hopes of reintegrating down the road. Second, emerging scientific ideas point to energy pre-existing the universe and, perhaps, forming an infinite number of other universes.

So, there you go. DeistCosmos (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Probably could use more on Heraclitus.
Name is just dropped as a mention, but his ideas were more important than that for this philosophy. LCS check (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is indeed much more which could be written of Heraclitus here. Why don't you write it, brother (or sister)? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Original Research
This article is entirely original research, it should be deleted. Theres no such thing as Pandeism, the only quote that provides an origin of the term concludes that it's a description of pantheism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.137.36.230 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * my friend that proposition has been raised and disposed of before. Closing in on a quarter million Google hits indicates this to be an existing topic, and the topic is discussed and defined in multiple books,, , , , , , , , and by published authors in other contexts. It is even in the Encyclopedia Britannica as well, so, you know, we'd need be pretty far out there to conclude there's 'no such thing.' DeistCosmos (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

In virtually every single instance of the word "pandeism" appearing in print it is equated with pantheism (including your own examples--as if vanity published books by a bunch of nobodies, who are not doing any scholarly work in religious studies, are a sufficient example of notability.) It never existed as a discrete philosophy or religion. This article should be deleted and the term pandeism should redirect to pantheism, which encompasses all the content on here that isn't original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.130.173 (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well of course it's equated with pantheism, it's pantheistic. Rather like saying Seventh Day Adventism should redirect to Christianity, as it's Christian. LCS check (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Seventh Day Adventism is historically noteworthy and distinct from other forms of Protestantism; it even has adherents. A guy didn't just roll out of bed one day and make a website about it.70.238.130.173 (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Pandeism was coined in 1787. Someone rolled out of bed one day in 1787 and made a website? Doubtful. Does any reliable source describe this coinage as errant, a confusion? And, if some may mix up terms or interchange them when speaking of commonalities, others distinguish them clearly. Encyclopedia of American Philosophy, quoted in the article, states for example that some "took a more pantheist or pandeist approach by rejecting views of God as separate from the world." Two separate things. Can't be talking about Deism there either, which has no such rejection. So it's separate. Can't stick around to debate this, as I'm going away for the weekend in short order, maybe pick this conversation back up Monday. LCS check (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Prove that it's errant? Why not prove that it's valid? Look to page three of the archives here for a full blown refutation though. The "or" in your Encyclopedia of American Philosophy indicates that they're equivalent concepts, not separate ones. The words are synonyms, not unique ideologies.70.238.130.173 (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You would cite "page 3 of the archives" as a source for errancy? Not my burden to prove words mean what they say. If meaning is otherwise, prove it by reference to an actual source, not other editor arguments. And, well, novel reading of "or" to suggest it means the same thing, and not one thing, "or" the other, even if closely related. But I'm off now. See you Monday, I'm sure. LCS check (talk) 01:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The source of errancy is this errant wikipedia article, which has been propped up in mid-air with no historical precedent, or discernible modern day following. It's telling that rather than point me to sources of authenticity you quibble about semantics.70.238.130.173 (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at this, I turn my back for a while and controversy erupts. I have one question, just one, for our anonymous antipandeist here. In his award-winning book, The God Franchise: A Theory of Everything, my dear friend Alan Dawe writes: "Pandeism: This is the belief that God created the universe, is now one with it, and so, is no longer a separate conscious entity. This is a combination of pantheism (God is identical to the universe) and deism (God created the universe and then withdrew Himself)."

The book is published, and has won a prominent award for philosophical writing. Is it, or is it not a source, for the proposition that the word means what it is defined therein to mean? Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It's all pretty flimsy with you guys. The one quote you can give me where pandeism is mentioned without being synonymous with pantheism, is from this guy: "Alan H. Dawe has been a student of life and spirituality for over five decades. He has always been interested in writing, and has been itching to write this book for many years. Home for Alan is Auckland, New Zealand, where he is surrounded by books and music." I can't find any other information on him, much less if he has any kind of scholarly credentials in the area of religious studies. What award are you talking about? How does anyone know this isn't just you? Maybe that wouldn't be an issue if pandeism had a noteworthy following regardless, but I haven't seen any evidence of that either.70.238.130.173 (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Brother, now I perceive positive hostility towards Pandeism in your tone. Perhaps Pandeism is not given a kindly eye in the hinterlands of Missoura? Certainly if you can't find the award I'm "talking about" then you're just not looking very hard. And as for that being "the one quote," here are four more, some already raised elsewhere in these discussions


 * 2011, Paul Bradley This Strange Eventful History: A Philosophy of Meaning, page 156: "On the other hand, Pandeism combines the concepts of Deism and Pantheism with a god who creates the universe and then becomes it."


 * 2010, Dr. Ronald Bish, Jesus: The Way, the Truth and the Life, page 19: "Pandeism: The belief that God preceded the universe and created it, but is now equivalent with it."


 * 2008, Shane T. Foster, We Are The Imagination of Ourselves, page 77: "The first is known as "Pandeism," which is a combination of pantheism and deism (a philosophical concept which states that whatever force led to the creation and/or existence of the cosmos no longer exists in any applicable or accessible form)."


 * 2007, Alex Ashman, BBC News, Metaphysical Isms: Pandeism is the belief that a god gave up their status as a god to become the universe, and is thus based on the ideals of deism.

Adding Dawe, that's, let's see, one-two-three-four-five right there. And as to your question, "How does anyone know [Alan Dawe] isn't just you?," I am not Alan Dawe, period. Nor am I any of the other four authors named above, nor am I the physicist Robert G. Brown who has authored a paper on Pandeism, nor am I the TED alumus Bernardo Kastrup who has written on Pandeism as well. And if I were Dawe, I'd have been more explicit in identifying the theory of The God Franchise as pandeistic. And since you choose to make an issue of identity, who are you? And what qualifies you to opine on the extant of a theological theory? So far as your edit history reveals, you appeared here just over a week ago, made a half dozen paltry edits unrelated to any area of theology, and then launched into an anti-Pandeism crusade in various fora, with no apparent regard for the work of dozens of respected editors who've clearly known and of and thought enough of this topic to make contributions to knowledge's home. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * @70.238.130.173: As it happens I'm a Roman Catholic, so not part of that "you guys" you deem flimsy. Have a question for you. Is it that you don't believe there's any school of thought which has God becoming the Universe? Or such school of thought exists, but "Pandeism" is the wrong name for it?
 * @DeistCosmos: Trading barbs won't lend to your credibility, but same question to you. LCS check (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already largely thrown my hands up. Naturally such a theological model exists; and naturally, intuitively even, it encompasses both aspects of Deism (for our Creator has set forth a Universe and thereafter need not intervene within it) and Pantheism (for our Creator has become the All in which we flow), and so it is best called Pandeism. And as to the anonymous objector I even forgot the first source used in this very piece -- 2009, Sean Johnston, History of Science: A Beginner's Guide, page 90: "In its most abstract form, deism may nor attempt to describe the characteristics of such a non-interventionist creator, or even that the universe is identical with God (a variant known as pandeism)." But we seem to run immediately into a double standard, one which would not be applied to a theistic formulation, wherein we are told that this exact model can not be discussed in this article unless it is called Pandeism in the work, and yet every effort is made to question, diminish, and eliminate sources which in fact use the word, Pandeism. DeistCosmos (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)