Talk:God becomes the Universe/Archive 2

Bias

I can't believe how much the article on Pandeism is completely biased in favor of Pandeism! It misuses arguments that support the God of the Bible to instead support calling "God" an idea that goes against most every element that is commonly accepted as being necessary of God. It says "Arguments for the existence of God (other than those premised on the truth of a particular religious text) tend to support a pandeistic Universe as readily, if not more, as a theistic Universe." No counter argument is offered, in any nature, but it is just blindly accepted that for example because some philosopher or professor says that Pandeism could be the first cause then Pandeism is actually supported by a first-cause argument. There is almost zero criticism as has been raised by othre religions, such as the evidence of God's being active in our lives, and the deep human need for a personal God and for their personal interaction with God. Pandeism is presented in this article as some sort of perfected theology springing forth to envelop and dismiss every religious idea that come before it, with no assessment of its absolutely glaring flaws and shortcomings in the light of other religions.

Some of the sources this article uses are mostly critical of Pandeism even though the authors of this article have worded them to present them as either positive, or merely informative rather than critical. The Bob Burridge example is a perfect example. His book makes quick work of showing why Pandeism falls short of the transcendent God of Christianity. But he is quoted in a way that it looks like he is just saying what Pandeism is, and not anything about it. While Charles Hartshorne does prefer Pandeism to Pantheism, his reasons for rejecting Pandeism are clear and increasingly spelled out. That Yale University Sheffield article is quoted saying "this war means the death of Christianity and an era of Pandeism" as if that's a good thing, when the entire article taken in context is a defense of Christianity in an era when its inherent morality seen slipping away.

This is probably the product of the authors of the article, who are probably all Pandeists, or who at least are comfortable putting Pandeism above the other religions that it defames. Something should be done about this.

Theoph876 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This "bias" you are talking about is nonexistant. Your examples are just bizarre. Burridge's rejection of pandeism is spelled out in the article. So is Hartshorne's reasoning for accepting panentheism. As far as I can tell, so is Sheffield's rejection of pandeism. I think your problem is not that the authors are comfortable putting pandeism above other religions, but that you are uncomfortable that other religions are not put above pandeism. I'm guessing you are a Christian? Please, tell my why is it that pandeism is not as good a "first cause" argument than Christianity? Why is it as not as good a "prime mover" argument? 198.100.3.85 (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well here it is, geniuses, you are all dead wrong by a huge leap on the "earliest use of Pandeism". Luigi Ferrarese (an Italian phrenologist) described pandeism in a book called "Memorie Risguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica" ("Thoughts Regarding the Doctrine of Phrenology") published in 1838. THat's more than 20 years before your claim. And not only was Ferrarese's description so much more on point, but it was unequivocabally critical.

Here is the complete text of the line Ferrarase uses:

Dottrina, che pel suo idealismo poco circospetto , non solo la fede, ma la stessa ragione offende (il sistema di KANT) : farebbe mestieri far aperto gli errori pericolosi, cosi alla Religione, come alla Morale, di quel psicologo franzese , il quale ha sedotte le menti (COUSIN), con far osservare come la di lui filosofia intraprendente ed audace sforza le barriere della sacra Teologia, ponendo innanzi ad ogn' altra autorità la propria : profana i misteri , dichiarandoli in parte vacui di senso, ed in parte riducendoli a volgari allusioni, ed a prette metafore ; costringe , come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie di pandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec.

I do not speak Italian, but I've had this passage explained to me by one who does and roughly it means that Pandeism is a doctrine that has God split into fragments, and people are just fragments of God, which profanes the mysteries of theology.

I'll attempt a translation, although the Italian is a bit old-fashioned and involved for me to be very sure about it: "A doctrine which, because of its little-circumspect idealism, offends not just faith, but reason itself (Kant's system): it would be useful to show the dangerous errors, to Religion as much as to Moral, of that French psychologist, who seduced minds (Cousin), by showing how his bold and audacious philosophy breaks the barrier of the holy Theology, placing his own authority before any other: he profanes the mysteries, declaring them partly devoid of meaning, and partly reducing them to vulgar allusions and pure metaphors; forces, as a learned Critic noted, the revelation to swap places with instinctive thought and assertion without reflection without and places reason outside man, declaring man a fragment of God, introducing a sort of spiritual pandeism, which is absurd to us and insulting to the Supreme Being, which gravely offends the freedom of ???self, etc, etc." --LjL (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your efforts. I do appreciate your translating work. Thank you. Theoph876 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a picture of Ferrarase's line quoted, from google books:

If you're dense enough not to believe me, here is a link to the book itself on google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=viE7AAAAcAAJ&pg=RA1-PA16&dq=pandeismo

So much for the "research" that puts the Germans first.

Theoph876 (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That's fine research and should be added but it doesn't prove a thing about there being bias in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.202.139.214 (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Then consider the possibility that you are so biased as to be blinded by it. The article is clearly "pro-Pandeism" ranting, attempting to pile up evidence in favor of Pandeism being superior to other religions and bury the inadequacies of the doctrine. Theoph876 (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I aplogize for some of my tone above as I can see that I was harsh when this was not needed. I pray that I will be forgiven for my choice of words. But I do repeat that this article is more of a favorable view of pandeism then a disinterested view as it should be, and beg of its creators to consider this. Theoph876 (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Funny that you should talk about "creators" in the context of an article like this... ;-) Anyway, keep in mind that there are no "creators". Nobody owns this article. You are very free to turn it from biased to WP:NPOV, by balancing it with other relevant NV:POVs as long as they are not WP:FRINGE views. --LjL (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well there is one "Creator" that I must insist upon, but not of this article in particular! ;) Theoph876 (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done an independent review of the article. It could stand a lot of improvement in explaining the subject matter, but I didn't think it was especially biased. 147.9.148.55 (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You’ve been so intent on demanding research, one of the journals (the Journal of Theological Studies, or of the Journal of Modern Theology, must have been one of them but now I can’t find the article) just pushed back the first reference to Pandeism by more than fifty years!! And they put its origin back in Germany, where it belongs and where everyone has always said, from Gottfried Große’s 1787 interpretation of Pliny the Elder’s Natural History:

Naturgeschichte: mit erläuternden Anmerkungen, 1787, Volume 11, 165:

Das sechs und dreyßigste Buch.

Nun Hab' ich noch die Steine ihrer Natur nach zu beschreiben, den Hauptgegenstand unsers moralischen Unsinns — Von Gemmen, vom Succinum, von krystallischen und murrhinischem Geräthe, mag ich nichts sagen. Von allem, was ich bis zu diesem Buche beschrieben, kann man allenfalls sagen , daß es für den Menschen geschaffen sey. Aber die Berge baute die Natur für sich selbst, um in den Eingeweidender Erde Festigleit und Verbindung zu bewürken, die gewaltsamen Flüsse zu bandigen, die Wellen zu brechen, und also mit ihren sestern und hartern Theilen (1) die unruhigen:

(1) Nemlich mit den festen Theilen der Natur selbst. Beym. Plinius, den man, wo nicht Svinozisten, doch einen Pandeisten nennen sonnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konfreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn. Waffer ist ein Naturtheil, Erde auch, nicht minder sind es die festen Gebürge. Unter den unruhigen Naturtheilen versteht er ohnstreitig das Wasser, die Winde u.s.w., geu zu beschranken.

My old-time German is no better than your old-time Italian, but I’ve made it a go with web translators and:

Natural History: With Explanatory Notes, 1787, Volume 11, 165:

The six and thirtieth book.

Describing now I have the stones to their nature, the main object of our moral nonsense - from gems, from amber from krystalkschen(crystal?) and murrhinischem(?) tools, I do not say anything. Of all the things I described to this book, one can perhaps say that it created for the people sey.(?) But the mountains built by Nature for herself, to bewürken(?) in the bowels of the earth and Festigleit(?) connection, bandigen(bandageing?) the violent rivers, breaking the waves, and therefore with their firmer and hard parts (1) the turbulent:

Namely, with the solid parts of nature itself Beyme. Pliny, the one where not Spinozist, but call a sunning Pandeist is nature or God is not separate from the world or being secreted. Its nature is the whole creation in Konfreto(?), and as it seems to be designed with his divinity. Water is a natural part, even the earth, no less, it is the mountains of solid. Among the troubled parts of nature, he understands indisputably the water, wind, etc., restrict, geu(?) too.

And so I'll just go ahead and fix the article, to reflect this half century error. Torquemama007 (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Torquemama007 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I confess, I am taken by suprise. Yes that is unarguably a much earlier use, and it is certain that it seems to describe the theory, if this is a correct translation. But it's no endoresement of the theory, it can only be said to observe at best. Maybe even a sly insult. A sunning Pandeist? Translation of more of the surrounding text would make the writer's opinion clear, all we know him to be saying is that Pliny could be called a Pandeist, for good or ill. Theoph87602 (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

William Walker Atkinson's refutation

Best schooling ever- see below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.137.200 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I find that an adequate refutation is supplied by William Walker Atkinson, Mastery of Being, 1911, at pages 56 to 57. Although he deigns not to mention pandeism by name, he describes it exactly and refutes it quite fully.

“ Another Error of Pantheism

It will be seen that this fact of the Immutability of REALITY, when clearly conceived, must serve to confute and refute the erroneous theories of certain schools of Pantheism which hold that "God becomes the Universe by changing into the Universe." Thus it is sought to identify Nature with God, whereby, as Schopenhauer said, "you show God to the door." If God changes Himself into The Phenomenal Universe, then God is non-existent and we need not concern ourselves any more about Him, for he has committed suicide by Change. In such case there is no God, no Infinite, no Immutable, no Eternal; everything has become finite, temporal, separate, a mere union of diverse finite parts. In that case are we indeed adrift in the Ocean of Diversity. We have lost our Foundation of REALITY, and are but ever-changing "parts" of physical things governed by physical laws. Then, indeed, would be true the idea of some of the old philosophies that "there is No Being; merely a Becoming." Then would there, in truth, be nothing constant, the universe never the same for two consecutive moments, with no permanent ground of REALITY to support it. But the reason of man, the very essence of his mental being, refuses to so think of That-which-IS. In his heart of hearts he recognizes the existence of THAT-WHICH-CHANGES-NOT, THAT-WHICH-IS-ETERNAL, THAT-WHICH-IS-REALITY.

The "Evolving God."

Moreover, the idea of the immutability of REALITY must, serve to confute the erroneous idea of certain schools of metaphysics which assert the existence of "an Evolving God"; that is, a God which increases in intelligence, nature, and being by reason of the change of the universe, which is an expression of Himself. This conception is that of a Supreme Being who is growing, developing, and increasing in efficiency, wisdom, power, and character. This is an attempt to combine the anthropomorphic deity and the pantheistic Nature-God. The conception is clearly anthropomorphic, as it seeks to attribute to God the qualities and characteristics of man. It defies every fact of Ultimate Principle of REALITY. It is extremely unphilosophical and will not stand the test of logical examination.

”

He devastatingly makes the point a few pages on (at 59) that if God were evolving or improving, being an infinite being, it would have to be traceable back to some point of having "an infinitely undeveloped state and condition."

Should this not be added to the article? Theoph87602 (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Are you serious? The only thing devasating about that passage is how moronic it is. The only thing it proves is that, amazingly, a hundred years ago people still resorted to typing in ALL CAPS when they had something stupid to say and were intent on pushing their juvenile point by saying it very loud.
  
  Shouting something or other is eternal is not proof of anything being eternal. And the fact that something becomes better does not mean that it can be projected backwards infinitely to a time when it was lousy. By the way, now we know that there was no "time" before the Big Bang, so it's meaningless to talk about any passage of time before the Universe exists. This idiot obviously didn't know. These are just straight up mistakes. If anything, they should be included in the article to show how feeble these kind of arguments are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.174.209 (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

• • Walker's claims don't seem to be much of an issue to me, since he makes a naked presumption of an eternal infinite God, which pandeism rejects at the outset, and which he doesn't make a prior proof of that goes beyond the typical "I really really want God to be infinite, so it is". Torquemama007 (talk) 19:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"The Pandeist Theorem"

I added this paragraph to the paper: In 2009, Robert G. Brown, a professor of physics at Duke University with a background in philosophy, published a scientific proof asserted to demonstrate the truth of pandeism under information theory. Titled "The Pandeist Theorem," the theorem states that "If God exists, then God is identical to the Universe. That is, the theorem is a statement of conditional pandeism. If God exists at all, God must be absolutely everything that exists." The basic premise is that a being properly defined as God must have absolute knowledge of the Universe, and that no method except existing as a real-time map of the whole content of the Universe would permit that. Brown's conception does not accept a created Universe, but one that is pandeistic without having been created, although he allows for the possible consciousness of "God" - the Universe itself - at n-dimensional levels.

All references are to Robert G. Brown, ""The Pandeist Theorem" (2009).

It seems vital to this article that information of a scientific theory proving pandeism through physics and information theory is expanded. Torquemama007 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More Hinduism

Some branches of Hinduism are expressly pandeistic. More discussion of this should be in here. 208.27.203.131 (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide some specifics? Torquemama007 (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

More food for thought

Gustavo Uzielli, Ricerche intorno a Leonardo da Vinci, 1896, p. xxxv

Certo è che quel concetto forma una delle basi morali fondamentali di religiosi i cui segnaci sono oltre i due terzi della popolazione del globo, mentre è influenzato dall'indole speciale di ciascuna di esse, cioè da un idealismo sovrumano nel Cristianesimo, da un nichilismo antiumano nel buddismo, e da un pandeismo eclettico nell'incipiente ma progrediente Bramoismo indiano; e a queste credenze che ammettono il principio ideale della fratellanza universale, conviene aggiungere il naturalismo estetico scientifico greco-romano e moderno che inspira, in modo sostanziale, tutto l'insegnamento pubblico Europeo, e contro il quale protestarono sempre e molto logicamente gli ortodossi cristiani, da Paolo II papa (*) a Giuseppe di Maistre. Taccio d«l Babrsmo, scisma ancor nebuloso del Maomettismo, avvenuto come il Brauioismo per l'influenza scientifico-cristiana dell'Europa, e che ha punti morali di contatto con l'anarchismo europeo-americano.

It is certain that this concept forms a fundamental moral bases of religious whose cable markers are more than two-thirds of the world's population, while special influence on the capacities of each of them, by a superhuman idealism in Christianity, a nihilism antihuman in Buddhism, and an incipient but eclectic pandeism progressing in Bramanist Indian beliefs and those who admit the principle ideal of universal brotherhood, it is worthwhile scientific naturalism aesthetic greek-roman and modern inhales, substantially, all the teaching European audience, and against which they protested always very logically and the Orthodox Christians, Pope Paul II to Joseph Maistre. Babrsmo of silent, still nebulous schism of Muhammad, as the case for the influence Bramanism, Scientific-Christian Europe, and that moral points of contact with European-American anarchism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.10.20 (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Pandeism as omnism

So we should discuss now the appropriateness of the following section, which was previously removed:

A different use of the term is typified in the usage ascribed by J. Sidlow Baxter, who wrote in his 1991 work, Our Bible: The Most Critical Issue:

“ If the Bible is only human lore, and not divine truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, "Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all into Pan-Deism - one world religion with one god made out of many". ”

This use of the word is synonymous with omnism or omnitheism, which suppose a kernel of truth in all religions, rather than all being simultaneously true in their entirety. The Wycliffe Bible encyclopedia describes the religion of Babylon as "clearly a type of pan-deism formed from a synthesis of Christianity and paganism."

In a variation on this theme, the Vatican has been accused of having a pandeism conspiracy with respect to other religions:

“ The church of Rome uses the term "pandeism", to describe her current program of bringing under her wing the non-Christian religions of the world. In this, Rome will finally succeed, because the prediction says, "all the world wondered after the beast". (Revelation 13:3). ”

This seemingly separate use is not necessarily diverse from the broader theological theory, for it is easy to see how Pandeism, read as pantheistic Deism accounts for all religious phenomena attributed to theistic faiths.

I do not understand what, is wrong for saying this is how the word is used to mean and addind to it evidence which shows it used to mean that.

Here is more for example:

••••

"[India] [First Impressions of India by a Nineteenth Century evangelist|worships three hundred millions of divinities. To her, God is everything, and everything is God], and, therefore, everything may be adored. [Snakes] and [monster]s are her special divinities. Her pan-deism is a pandemonium."

-- Source: [Reverend] Henry Grattan [Guinness], in [Missionary] Review, in [John Harvey Kellogg]'s International Health and [Temperance] Association, The Medical Missionary, 1897, page 126.
(Annotation: The earliest example, here, could carry either sense!! [Hinduism], long one of the prime religions of India, has been observed to have sects espousing pandeistic conceptions.)

••••

"In certain passages of the OT the concept of [Babylon] emerges into an archetypal figure for the proud, God-defying forces of this world ([Isaac|Isa] 13-14; 21.1-10; 47: [Jeremiah|Jer] 50-51). In the NT it is even more clearly a type of pan-deism formed from a [synthesis] of [Christianity] and [paganism]; this is indicated symbolically in the description of the [woman] riding on [the Beast] ([Revelations|Rev] 17:1 ff.)."

-- Source: Charles F. Pfeiffer, Howard Frederic Vos, and John Rea, in The [Wycliffe Bible] Encyclopedia, 1975, page 190.
(Annotation: It's been frequently pointed out to me that Christianity has long since become this synthesis, what with all the pagan celebrations, practices, even whole doctrines being brought up into it right from its early centuries, and into modern times.)

••••

"If the [Bible] is only human lore, and not [divine] truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, 'Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all into Pan-deism - one world religion with one god made out of many.'"

-- Source: [J. Sidlow Baxter], Bible: The Most Critical Issue, 1991.
(Annotation: Oh, let's!! There is a sense in which pandeism is said to combine the most defensible and rational truths that can be reduced out of all faiths....)

••••

"Should the [demigod] [Pan] come to [bear], the result will be Pan-deism, the opening of [Pandora's Box]."

-- Source: John Gee, in The [Metaphysician]s' [Desk Reference] 2003, page 164.
(Annotation: Um.... ok. Not exactly sure what this guy is going for -- something cleverly hidden in the wordplay? Or just [alliteration] for its own benefit?)

••••

"Perhaps as a response to the years of repression under the old regime, they embraced the pan-deism of the ancient world, with its numerous gods and lesser deities. They were proponents of sexual freedom as well, even going so far as to hold public orgies until halted by the local government."

-- Source: R. J. Leahy, in [1], 2006, page 54.
(Annotation: [orgy|Orgies]? Hey, sure!! Numerous gods? No, not really. But consider Hinduism again, which presents numerous gods as a mask for one true underlying force.)

••••

"Just as the [Pharisee] thought he could come before God and present to Him his [good works], the [knowledge of good and evil] literally became the [doorway] of pan-deism (that is, many ways to God)."

-- Source: Dewayne A. Pattie, in No [King] But [Caesar] & The Return of The Melek Tsedek: A Biblical Study on Faith, Religion, and the [Antichrist] From the [Covenant] Perspective, September 29, 2009, p. 45.
(Annotation: And oughtn't there be "many ways" to such an entity as that of which they speak!?)

••••

And so, as a rule, hyphenated pan-deism begs something else, not the true blue view of "pandeism." But, a rule being laid out we are now tasked with highlighting the exceptions!!

One occurs where Professor Francis E. Peters, in [Greek] Philosophical Terms: A Historical [Lexicon] 1967, page 169, inscribes, "What appeared here, at the center of the [Pythagoras|Pythagorean] [tradition] in philosophy, is another view of [psyche] that seems to owe little or nothing to the pan-vitalism or pan-deism (see theion) that is the legacy of the Milesians." And there we know he speaks of the more familiar pandeism (and how do we know this? Because it rightly captures the spirit of that ancient Milesian worldview). Where poet and critic Liam Rector, in The Day I Was Older: on the poetry of Donald Hall‎, 1989, page 69, propounds that it was "[Alexander Pope|Pope's] rationalism and pan-deism with which he wrote the greatest mock-epic in English literature" for it reflects Alexander Pope's philosophy, summed up in [An Essay on Man]: "All are but parts of one stupendous whole / Whose body [nature] is, and God the [soul]" (forecasting, mayhap, a later artist's affirmation that "[I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together].")

And again, [William Harbutt Dawson], writes in his [biography|biographic epistle], [Matthew Arnold] and His Relation to the Thought of Our [Time], 1904, republished 1977, page 256, that "whatever the deity which satisfied Arnold's personal experience may have been, the religion which he gives us in Literature and Dogma and God and the Bible is neither Deism nor bare Pan-Deism, but a diluted [Positivism]." Now, one might assume, as the editor of the 1977 edition suggests, that that Dawson may have intended to write "bare Pan-Theism" rather than "Pan-Deism". If one does not, then we are presented with a direct comparison with Deism, for Dawson then observes: "As an ethical system it is in theory admirable, but its positive value is in the highest degree questionable. [Blaise Pascal|Pascal]'s judgment upon the God who emerged from the philosophical investigations of [René Descartes] was that He was a God who was unnecessary."

There exist, naturally, instances going the other direction, where the unhyphenated "[pandeism]" is used in a sense that suspiciously summons the all-faiths or mixed-faiths conceptions. By way of example, Conrad Baker, in his 2005 essay, The Three Powers Of Armageddon: An Exposition of Revelation 16:13-16, insists that "The [church of Rome] uses the term "pandeism," to describe her current program of bringing under her wing the non-Christian religions of the world." To which Baker chillingly addends, "In this, Rome will finally succeed, because the prediction says, "all the world wondered after the beast."(Revelation 13:3)."

But returning again to the uses that make and not break this rule, now there are two ways you could think about this; one being that some folks are none too educated in their collocation of words. Look at the roots: pan, everything, deism, yes it does descend from the Latin for "God" -- but it has preceded these quotations by centuries in a long and greatly expounded distinct meaning all its own, of a particular kind of faith standing apart from the theism that these folks try to mash up. The right word would be [omnithism]. Might even be that they mean to mislead -- pandeism is indeed as much subject to misuse abuse as other words relating "off-the-beaten-path" faiths. Like Moralistic therapeutic deism (which is in point of fact no kind of "deism"), false usage, possibly intentionally, demeans and diminishes the dimensions of its domain.}} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.8.93 (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Another interpretation

Please work the analysis that follows into the article:

Pandeism is the belief that the Deus created Our Universe (the Deus existed before the universe’s existence), the Deus is the universe (the Deus became the universe), and the universe will one day coalesce into a single being (the universe will once again become the Deus). It is somewhat simple to explain the definition of Pandeism, but it’s a whole other ballgame to explain how Pandeism could be a possibility in the world we know to exist today. I will explain the theory of Pandeism in four different phases.

Pandeism Phase 1: The Deus: Pre-Universe

In the Pandeistic theory, the Deus that existed before the universe is an omnipotent being. The Deus, being omnipotent, does not operate as a human would. It does not desire and does not need anything because omnipotence grants Him freedom from desires and needs. The Deus is also aware of itself. It knows that It exists and that It is omnipotent. It is also aware that It is the only "god" that exists. In a sense, the Deus has a consciousness. If the Deus is aware of Itself and is aware that It is omnipotent, what thought or question could possibly exist in Its mind? The Deus can only be aware of Itself in the manner in which It exists. Therefore, the Deus would not be aware of Itself in a manner in which It would not exist. Or would he? By default, this would be the only question that could exist in the Deus’ mind: What would happen if I cease to exist? That question being asked by the Deus, would be the logical reasoning behind Its motivation to act, to do anything at all. To answer this question, the Deus took action and destroyed Itself.

Pandeism Phase 2: The Birth of the Universe

According to the Law of Conservation of Energy and Matter, anything that exists cannot cease to exist, nor can anything be created from nothing. If we apply this same law to the Deus, we can then safely state that the Deus cannot cease to exist, but Its existence can shift from one form to another.

When we rewind the evolution of the universe, we can see that there was indeed a beginning roughly 13.7 billion years ago (give or take 200 million years) according to the Lambda-CDM concordance model of “big bang” cosmology. According to the Big Bang theory, the universe started out as a very high density of energy, huge temperatures and pressures that was very rapidly expanding and cooling.

Let’s overview our present scenario after Phase 1 and Phase 2: First, we have an omnipotent being who decides to self-destruct in order to answer Its own question, “What will happen if I self-destruct?”. Second, we have the birth of the Universe as we know it. If, according to the Law of Conservation, the universe can not be born from nothing and the Deus can not cease to exist, then one must conclude that the Deus, in the act of self-destruction, gave birth to the very elements that make up the beginnings of our universe as we know it. The Deus ceased to exist as It knew itself to exist, and appropriately existed in another context, the universe.

When the Deus took action and became the universe, It created another phenomenon; time. Time is essentially the sequence of events taking place one after another. Before the Deus took action, created an event, there was no event to be created, no action to execute. Once the Deus created an event (his own self-destruction) It put forth a sequence of events that would continue long after Its initial self-destruction.

Pandeism Phase 3: The Coalescence

After the Deus’s self-destruction, Its composition was re-composed in the manner in which is described by the Big Bang theory. If Its essential being is currently compiling into stars, planets, and everything else that exists in our universe, what can be said for Its consciousness? According to the Law of Conservation, Its consciousness cannot cease to exist; of course this is assuming that consciousness has a tangible existence within our universe.

When we look at ourselves as the beings we are, we notice that we are self-aware, sentient, sapient beings on a level quite unlike that of any other species in our known universe. Is this self-awareness that we possess just the logical outcome of a world evolving? Yes, but it cannot be ignored that our self-awareness is also the logical outcome of an omnipotent, self-aware Deus that once existed in a manner in which can execute Its own decisions based on motivation to do so, not unlike the way we do.

If the Deus’s self-awareness and consciousness has been handed over to us as a characteristic we possess, we must then conclude that every decision we make, every action we perform is a result of being the remnants of the Deus. If we are the inevitable results of the Deus’s destruction, then what are the inevitable results of us? What is to become of an ever-evolving universe and an ever-evolving consciousness?

If we look at the timeline of human civilization, we can use that as a parallel to the events that have taken place, are taking place, and will take place throughout existence as we know it. We humans started out as a population of species that inhabited Africa some 200,000 years ago. Since then we have migrated across the globe, separated ourselves in terms of geography, culture, language and philosophy. We each developed our own ways as individual societies to protect ourselves from one another. With the advancement in technology concerning communication, we were eventually able to come together more closely as a whole. With the internet and other manners of information exchange, we are able to communicate with one another so rapidly and with so much ease, that it almost rivals that in comparison to the way in which we each individually sequentially think our own thoughts. If we give communication technology another two thousand years, or even one million years, what will we have then? Would it be possible to think a thought and automatically have it be thought in the mind of another individual across the globe? Could that be described as one collective consciousness? Is that science fiction? Or would it be the results of an evolving species in an ever-evolving universe, the results of the death and re-birth of a conscious Deus?

This timeline of human activity; birth, evolving, migrating, coming together, is much like the universe’s own timeline; birth, evolving, expanding, coming together. According to the Big Crunch theory, the average density of the universe is enough to stop expansion and begin collapsing. What that basically means, is that one day the universe will start to slowly (in the same amount of time that it had expanded) condense in on itself. Although many scientists believe the universe will continue expanding infinitively, either theory has not yet been proven to be true.

Suppose the universe does continue to expand. If the universe can infinitely expand, than the matter and energy existing in the universe will infinitely evolve. Just like planets are made of different forms of matter condensing into one entity, so the universe is evolving over time to form together as one entity. The evidence can be seen throughout the universe by understanding that each and every part of the universe, every form of matter and energy, is essential to the existence of it’s counter-part or it’s co-exister.

Whether you believe the universe to be condensing in on itself or you believe the universe will grow forever, one thing remains clear; the universe and everything that exists within it, is coming together more and more as the years go on.

After reviewing the timelines and potential futures of the human consciousness and it’s universe in which it exists, and understanding that the universe and all that exists within it are remnants of a once self-aware, omnipotent being, we can then suppose that the Deus is reconfiguring Itself within the boundaries of existence as we know it.

Pandeism Phase 4: An Oscillating Existence

Assuming that the Deus will one day piece Itself back together by means of a universe and active consciousness coalescing in on itself, would It then be the same Deus It was before Its initial destruction? If It is the same Deus as It was before the birth of the universe, then It would again be plagued by the only question that can exist in Its mind; would I know what happens if I cease to exist?

The problem with assuming It would ask Itself that same question would be that since It had already existed as a universe and a separate consciousness as a result from Its first attempt at self destruction, then wouldn’t It already know that answer? He’s been there and done that. So now what?

There is another possible explanation. If the Deus, after ceasing to exist as he knew itself to exist, became the universe and a separate consciousness, It would not be aware of any other form of existing. Due to Its present state, it would be impossible for him to know Its previous state if It is not yet fully aware of itself in Its current state. Supposing that the entirety of existence will one day coalesce (the Deus piecing itself back together), the consciousness that the Deus will re-possess is not the same consciousness that existed while It wasn’t “fully complete”. It’s not that the Deus will forget that It was once a universe filled with stars, moons, and people. The very act of remembering a moment in time is only possible if time were to exist (the very act of remembering is an event being executed, time is a series of events being executed one after another…). Since time only exists while the universe is in motion, then time would cease to exist once the fully completed and fully revived Deus exists. An omnipotent Deus and the concept of time cannot co-exist; therefore the Deus would not execute the action of remembering that It was once a living universe, which brings us back to square one; what would be the only logical option for an omnipotent Deus? Thus we have the oscillating existence.

Prod

Noticed this was prodded, then prod tag removed. Be aware, this article is per proposition at Talk:Pandeism to split that article between use of the term, and the uses of this concept on this page, which may not necessarily fall into that term. LCS check (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of Universe?

So, Universe is capitalized in the name of the page, so I think it ought to be capitalized throughout; otherwise it really makes no sense for it to be capitalized in the page name at all. DeistCosmos (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

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.

Moved per consensus. There is a clear consensus to move to a title containing a lowercase "universe"; there is no consensus to make any other change to the title at this time. bd2412 T 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

God becomes the Universe → God becomes the universe – I'm requesting this move mainly as a result of the move discussion at Talk:Age of the universe#Requested move. The word universe is lowercased in the text of this article (except in the opening sentence), and it's desirable that the title and the text should agree. To say nothing of WP:NCCAPS. Deor (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• See also Talk:Shape of the Universe#Requested move 2013. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
• On second thought, I think a better move target would be God becoming the universe (or even God's becoming the universe) per WP:NOUN. Deor (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  • @User:Deor, becoming has its own meaning in the context of these kinds of discourse, distinct from that which the article addresses. Torquemama007 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, that is precisely what I meant, "becoming" has its own meaning. Both editors supporting that change seemingly overlook that. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone could confuse the Greek philosophical concept (which is often capped as Becoming, and which in any case is not used with a "subject" and an "object" as the gerund in the proposed title of this article is) with the use of the word in "God['s] becoming the universe". Deor (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Consider, if you will, the famous Ibn Arabi quote, "God is constantly becoming; and by his becoming I become." That, which refers to a theistic/panentheistic theological model, is understood by theologians as "God becoming," and is a model at odds with what is conveyed here. There was as I recall some discussion of what to name this separated article -- and though I opposed the division at all, I thought "God became the Universe" to be the better option, which was rejected for sounding too much like an assertion of what happened, instead of simply a theory. And so "becomes" is already more or less a compromise point between several possible poles, and one that ought not be further disturbed (especially if there is a possibility of conflating these narrowly delineated theological models). Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - *entirely* the comments of Deor above - and renaming the article with a lower-case "universe" - although flexible, "God becoming the universe" may be the best choice I would think atm - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support, but prefer Drbogdan's suggestion immediately above mine as an even better alternative since it describes the article topic instead of asserting it. In any case, consistent capitalization is an improvement. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a note to the closer, this IP account has repeated admonishments for vandalism, so a grain of caution is advisable in considering it. DeistCosmos (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose -- though at this point it's not exactly clear what the proposition is. But, as to the capitalization, Universe generally ought to be capitalized because there is only one, and it is a place, not simply some celestial body. And perhaps more importantly, as to the rest, "becoming the universe" sounds something like "erupting volcano" or "flowing river," a thing that is in a constant state of continuation. There are in fact specific other theological theories which posit such a "becoming" on the part of the deity, for example the process theology of Alfred North Whitehead. That is not this article. That is indeed a philosophy against which this article draws a contrast, noting Charles Hartshorne's explicit rejection of the "God becomes" proposition of Pandeism in favor of the "God becoming" model of Panentheism. The title, as it is, is a compromise achieved amongst people who actually know the difference between these philosophical propositions, when this material was (errantly, in my view) split from Pandeism's page. DeistCosmos (talk) 01:27, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Per the evidence in sources and style guidelines shown in the the previous discussion, including NASA which specifically says "Do not capitalize solar system and universe." The "there is only one" doesn't hold weight against reliable sources which overwhelmingly refute that logic. - Aoidh (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to lowercase "universe," for the same reasoning as my vote at Talk:Shape of the Universe#Requested move 2013. Oppose move from "becomes" to "becoming," because this is a specialized usage in this field of study, according to Becoming (philosophy). - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support for God becomes the universe as a phrase. --Article editor (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to God becomes the universe as those above, and oppose changing to incorrect becoming as per Deist, Aoidh, WPGA and others above. Torquemama007 (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - per result of other requests of a similar nature, for consistency.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Note to closing admin: There seems to be a proper mess going on here with edit histories, between the articles God becomes the Universe and Pandeism, and the redirect page God becomes the universe. Of the three, God becomes the universe seems to be the one with the oldest history, having been started way back in 2002. The other two were both started by @LCS check: in March 2013. @Anthony Appleyard: may be able to shed some more light on this as well, as it looks like he or she has already done some edit merging on one or more of these pages. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Having reviewed the edit histories of these pages, it is apparent that (pursuant to a consensus for a proposal to split the previous article), LCS check set up two articles, one being a new article at the name of an original "Article A", and the other having most of the content of the previous "Article A", but being at the title, "Article B" (you can see here that after about the first third, most of the content of the current article is reflected in the edit history of the previous article). LCS check then asked Anthony to associate LCS check's own edit history of "Article A" with that article, since the page had been moved following this rewrite, but no one aver asked to have the edit history of "Article B" associated with that article, and it was instead eventually moved to a redirect to "Article B". I'm fixing this now. Note that the entire edit history is a bit screwed up because prior deletion discussions in years past have resulted in other pages (and their edit histories) being merged into the edit history of the original article. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:50, 21 October 2013 (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.

• At 16:15, 2 April 2013‎ User:Anthony Appleyard history-merged Talk:Pandeism/Pandeism to Pandeism. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Not crazy about the move of the "criticisms" section

so I see that User:TheRedPenOfDoom moved the criticism section from the end of the page to about the middle of it. It's my sense of things that criticism sections are usually relegated to the nether regions of the page. I would consider the Haisch/Dawe/Lataster materials to as much part of the 20th century developments section as anything separate from it. But I would grant as well that the whole page is a mess, and would renew my charge that this never ought to have been split out from Pandeism in the first place (and, yes, I know I was distinctly in the minority in that discussion. But a minority view may still be absolutely correct). DeistCosmos (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

there probably shouldnt be a "criticisms" section at all: WP:STRUCTURE. I did not "move" it, what i did do was move a bunch of stuff that without context, made no sense at the beginning of the article to the end of the article. And in doing that, the "criticisms" ended up in the middle of the article since it was a subsection of the section "development". If it is not tied to "development" as a sub topic, i have issue with pushing it to the bottom of the article until someone can integrate it into the body. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:35, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

well I would submit that the bunch of stuff that was moved was a mix of material tied to the development of the theological model, and stuff not so tied in. Sharpe's evaluation of Asian metaphysics probably belongs in the "ancient" section. But it is apparent to me that Haisch writing a book proposing from the viewpoint of physics that God became the Universe is a modern development of the theory, even if it is premised as a scientific development as much as a philosophical one. DeistCosmos (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

on first glance the whole article looks pretty much a mess and I have no reservations if you want to do a complete re-write. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of universe

There is currently a discussion about the capitalization of Universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Capitalization of universe. Please feel free to comment there. —sroc 💬 13:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion of capitalization of universe

There is request for comment about capitalization of the word universe at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Capitalization of universe - request for comment. Please participate. SchreiberBike talk 00:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 22:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

---

God becomes the universe → God becomes the Universe – this used to be the title until this page got lumped together with a bunch of astronomical topics and moved. But, obviously it is not a topic in astronomy, but in theology, and so ought to have the same capitalization provided in its theological cousin Fine-tuned Universe. One conclusion to be drawn from the drawn-out debate of this matter as to the MOS is, lowercasing "universe" is only a question if we speak of universe-as-celestial-object. Pandeist (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2015 (UTC) And here are some examples showing how writings which relate to theological propositions of our Universe (and specifically to theories of "God" being our Universe (in the vein of Pantheism/Pandeism/Panentheism). So if the the language proposition of MOS is addressed to circumstances "when used in an astronomical context to refer to a specific celestial body" then Universe surely ought to be capitalized in God becomes the Universe because it is referred to as a theological construct instead of an astronomical one.

• "From the Religion (Divinity) point, Our Universe is part of the superior, original dot, God. Unless we have proof that Our Universe is not part of God, we can only rely on religion to say that Our Universe can only be religiously understood as part of God." Peter Kien-Hong Yu, God Is, by Inference, One Dot: Paradigm Shift, pages 53-54, 2010.
• "The Balance in the Universe is synonymous with the Central Force in the Universe. This is the only God of the Universe, and is as close to a supernatural-omnipotent God as we're going to get." Jay Thomas Willis, God, Or Balance in the Universe, page 21, 2006.
• "Everthing that happens in God's Universe and here on God's Earth is a result of the invisible Power of God pervading the Universe." Bedrich V. Hettich, The Reality of God in the Universe: Humankind Integrating with Life on God's Earth, page 105, 2009.
• "Personally, I believe that the Universe and the Creator are one. I capitalize Universe for the same reason that I capitalize God. For me, they are one and the same." Wu Wei, I Ching Life: Becoming Your Authentic Self, 2013.
• "We are spirits in the Universe (I capitalize Universe because it is our home), and the day we really understand the meaning of this, then—religious or not—we will begin living in peace as God intended." William Moreira, God! the Realities of the Creator page x, 2010.

(The above remarks are all from Pandeist (talk) 04:46, 21 February 2015)

• Comment even if you speak of the Universe as an astronomical construct, if you speak of the universe in which we inhabit specifically, it should still be capitalized as "Universe", while the generic "universe" should be used if speaking in a manner that could apply to many universes. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support, because it is the Universe that God has become whether it is an astronomical space full of stars or a theological four-cornered flat plane with a great bowl over it and holes poked to see the lights of heaven. Or the back of a giant turtle. Torquemama007 (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support. 63.117.186.3 (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support capitalization. In this context, it is a proper noun, just as we capitalize God when speaking specifically the Abrahamic religions, and don't when we use the word in the generic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:04, 1 March 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notification of request for comment

An RfC has been commenced at MOSCAPS Request for comment - Capitalise universe.

Cinderella157 (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I buy the arguments in the RM above, and don't have a big problem with finding Universe capitalized in theology articles, and lower-cased in astronomy articles. Among English's many inconsistencies, at least this one I can easily explain to my self with the arguments found above. The discussion at MoS has long since gone over the top; I don't see a point in contributing one small voice to it.

I think the above RM does a much better job of settling the issue for me as an editor than the discussion at MoS.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)