(June 21, 2011 at 4:03 pm)Arcos Plage Wrote: I have been summoned to this thread by Google Alerts to speak of Deism and Pantheism and Pandeism, and possibly Panendeism -- and why not?
(June 19, 2011 at 5:47 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:(June 19, 2011 at 1:12 am)Stue Denim Wrote: But again, the belief, what do you guys believe is the case in regards to its power (infinite, or only powerful enough to create this universe),
Powerful enough to get the ball rolling. An all powerful deity wouldn't need to rely on the mechanic of evolution but could create everything as desired. Then again, the "omni" words are so prone to paradox.
I think there is necessarily a bigger picture here, my friend. Naturally, if we presume a created Universe, we must assume that its Creator was powerful enough to bring it into being; and we can not logically assume that it had one jot more power than that (the typical theistic arguments supposing an 'infinite' deity with all manner of paradoxically unlimited powers amount to so much intellectual masturbation; sadly the payoff is only in their minds). But once we establish the supposition of sufficient power and intellect to create that which is observed, we must move to motivation, for an entity capable of creating a rational Universe must possess some degree of rationality, and so may be presumed to possess a rational motivation for so creating, esentially a need which is fulfilled by the effort. Hence, Pandeism, which builds the need back into the act, supposing that whatever need an entity of that sort would possess would be one best met by its existence as a Universe in which the sort of things go on which go on in ours -- natural processses leading to the creation of heavy elements, complex chemicals, life, evolution, intelligence, technology, and perhaps some greatly advanced future stages along our own path which we can not yet have an inkling of. Since an omnipotent being would not need to create anything to achieve any ends, and a lone superpotent being of the sort capable of creating a Universe would sorely lack the knowledge of being other than a lone being, this seems the most logical motivation for Creation (and is surprisingly reflected in some of the most ancient religious texts, those of Hinduism).
Pretty much why I went for panendeism over deism. The pandeistic god/s's motives are easier to explain, and any motive suggested for deism would be better explained by pandeism. (IMO!!!)
