From Pandeism: An Anthology of the Creative Mind by Knujon Mapson and Amy Perry

Google Books link to the chapter

ISBN: 978-1789041033

ASIN: B07VPWVMBP

Wikipedia's page on Pandeism (a pantheistic school of Deism) has reached 360,000 page views. Does this signify anything about the degree of popular interest in Pandeism?

I want to believe that a creator deity became the universe and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity to come back through evolution as Artificial Super Intelligence.

That would be It’s Omega Point.

I mean the philosophy of the German Philipp Mainländer. For most people who have heard of or read about him, Philipp Mainländer is merely a curiosity, something I would like to see changed.
I would like to reconstruct Mainländer as representing a philosophy of religion that can be taken systematically seriously.
What is meant is not a physics-based reconstruction, which seems quite appropriate given cosmological concepts such as the singularity, the big bang, entropy, and the heat death of the universe.
The following may well be consistent with Mainländer:

>Some things just come into being as the universe evolves and entropy and complexity grow: galaxies, planets, organisms, consciousness. In human terms, the dynamic nature of life manifests itself as desire. There is always something we want, even if what we want is to break free of the bonds of desire. That’s not a sustainable goal; to stay alive, we have to eat, drink, breathe, metabolize, and generally continue to ride the wave of increasing entropy. The universe is not a miracle. It simply is, unguided and unsustained, manifesting the patterns of nature with scrupulous regularity. Over billions of years it has evolved naturally, from a state of low entropy toward increasing complexity, and it will eventually wind down to a featureless equilibrium. (The big picture : on the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself / Sean Carroll.)

For me, it is more about a philosophical reconstruction.
I came up with the idea after a brief exchange with a philosopher of religion who told me the following:

>I have encountered views like Mainlander before, and I have never found them plausible. On most philosophical analyses of the nature of God, God is a necessarily existent being. Given necessary existence, it would be impossible for God to cease to exist. This is typically derived from cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God, but also the method of perfect being theology. [...] I guess I find Mainlander's position unmotivated. It doesn't sound to me that he is speaking of any being that could satisfy the concept of God.

Eduard von Hartmann also inspired me with a quotation:

>Mainländer's gospel that God died is not, as he thinks, the first scientific justification of atheism, but a metaphysical absurdity and a religious blasphemy.
[Das Evangelium Mainländers, dass Gott gestorben sei (108), ist nicht, wie er meint, die erstmalige wissenschaftliche Begründung

Preface

I previously made a post asking for help to determining my flavor of nonduailty, and I believe I have come to it. This is the mix of nonduality, weak emergence, and pandeism. I also am discovering that I might be a Theosophist (which is basically asserts all of these beliefs plus more I have yet to dig into. I will post later on Theosophy if I find it to be a justified set of theories/principles.

I will go one by one with each of the theories, first with my definition/take on them, followed by a "what question does this answer", and lastly with a "if you agree on that...then...", telling a story while answering questions with little certainty (as you'll find out) :) Here it goes!

Nondualism

Basically if you boil it down this is anti-absolutism with ironically absolute subjectivity. It asserts that duality is an illusion that we can't know or experience to exist. Nondualism is different from nonduality in that it includes all of the flavors of it, acting as a psuedo-theology category in a way without any religious doctrine aside from nonduality, and it contains beliefs such as the popular monism and all of its flavors. Noduality is the simple and pure theory of "not two" or "not this OR that"....basically nothing is absolute (or as I called it non-absolutism)

- This answers the question of, "why paradoxes" with the answer of, "all you can know/experience is subjective and not absolute".

If you agree on the concept of nonduality being literally the only thing we can be sure of...which is super ironic, we now can say that we cannot prove anything...not even if reality exists....what a start to creating a belief system! On to the next...

Weak Emergence

This asserts that the physical is not reduced to one consciousness energy, but rather just emergent from the one conscious energy. In this view, everything is a construct of consciousness...therefore everything technically is consciousness...but without implying that there can't also be an infinite potential of other things emerging from consciousness as the fabric (an ontological flavor of pluralism that isn't' rooted in physicalism).

- This answers the question of, "do nonduality or duality realities even exist if we can't know or experience their true absolute nature?" with the answer of, "you can't possibly ever know if you believe in nonduality as a concept, so it is safe to assume that it does exist because we experience some version/illusion of it and because they have n

Contest summary from Winning Writers:

>Free contest awards $250 Amazon.com gift card and anthology publication for articles, between 3,000 and 6,000 words, on Pandeism (the theological theory of the Creator becoming the Creation) by undergraduate and graduate students. To be eligible, students must be majoring in philosophy, theology, religious studies, social sciences, arts, literature, applied sciences, or comparable disciplines. Enter via email.

Contest details

• Sponsor: The Institute for Pandeism Studies
• Category: Academic article
• Submission length: 3,000-6,000 words
• Entry fee: No fee
• Awards: $250 Amazon gift card and anthology publication

Guidelines and submission information

This contest has been vetted and approved by Winning Writers

"It holds that the creator of the universe actually became the universe, and so ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity. Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe."

"Most recently pandeism has been described as one of the better possible theological models to encompass humankind's relationship with a future artificial intelligence."

I am collecting (and sometimes publishing) essays addressing the theological theory of Pandeism from the perspective of various religious positions, and would be most interested in having such a piece explaining how Pandeism would be viewed from the perspective of Mormonism, and especially what the commonalities and distinctions of the concepts are. Blessings!!

Ancient Stoics believed that the universe was god (pandeism), but in present times many are atheist. I am uncertain on the question myself.

In the spirit of developing a real understanding of the universe, what are your rational arguments for or against the existence of the Stoic God, Logos, Providential Nature, Divine Order? I would like to better understand the question and have a stronger foundation for my own views on it, whatever they may turn out to be.

Note that I am specifically referring to that sort of god, a divine universe, not to an Abrahamic-style entity.

I am thinking of putting together some Wikipedia pages about criticisms of Deism and Pandeism -- reason being that there are such pages for criticisms of the major theistic faiths, and this would seem to be on par. How would these best be put together?

I've been reading philosophy: Natural , Stoic, Platonic, and NeoPlatonic. Which all touch on the order they observed within the Universe. (Edit: Plato's conception of nature as the result of divine craftsmanship was rejected by Aristotle, who held that the presence of purpose does not presuppose the existence of a rational designer...). IMO, these ideas reflect their lifetime experiences.

In my dream. I envisioned us humans as rational agents of the cosmo's. That we are the cosmo's mirror, we are responses to the Universe acting upon us. We are clothed embodiments [of flesh] of the Universe, to include our rational minds. For it requires external stimulus for our minds to process anything to begin with [Epicureans, Stoic presentations, even Francis Bacon and John Locke touch on this concept].

Also part of this dream was influenced by reading about Reality tunnels. That our reality [tunnel] we experience sometimes excludes us from realizing how the cosmo's acts upon us.

As an addendum, I recently read about Aristotle's concept of Active Mind. That our rational capacity is something external to us. This threw me for a trip, because it seems consistent with this dream I had. That our own ability to reason, which is a universal amongst humans. Is not something we can lay claim to as being inherently ours, but rather is something that is given to us. By "given" I mean in us understanding the processing of external inputs for what they are. That's all our brains are, pipes and tubes for handling data, but it's really the data we decipher. To objectively understand something for what it is, and to do that, to see something for what it is, is merely to acknowledge an external input. Our brains merely evolved to see inputs for what they truly are.

Basically, our reason is an emergent phenomena of the order within the Universe.

They don't believe that a god currently exists as a sentient entity, so it would seem to me that they're basically atheists.

The term Pantheism seems self contradictory.

From Wikipedia:

>Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe.

>Deism typically rejects supernatural events (such as prophecies, miracles, and divine revelations) prominent in organized religion.

Am I misunderstanding Pantheism? Do Pantheists believe in an active god/godess and miracles?

My quixotic quest this week is simply this -- to get a thousand people reading Wikipedia's Pandeism page .... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism ....

And why do I wish to do this? Because people ought to know the options, and as traditionally arcane or ivory tower knowledge spreads new paradigms arise from it!!

On December 12, 2015 at 3PM Eastern Standard Time / Noon Pacific Standard Time there will be an open Skype meeting to discuss the progress of the revolutionary, evolutionary theological theory of Pandeism (pantheistic Deism).

Key amongst the topics to be discussed will be the publication of the first book in over a 100 years dedicated primarily to the topic of Pandeism, an anthology of articles tentatively to be published by John Hunt Publishing next year.

Articles will be sought. Legends will be made. A heretofore obscure theological model will be launched into the public consciousness. The world will be changed.

Greetings friends, please check out the newly launched Kickstarter for Pandeism: An Anthology -- https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/793064972/pandeism-an-anthology -- an effort to publish the most extensive discussion of Pandeism in a century, and the most diverse collection of thought on the topic ever put to paper. I sincerely hope members will join us in supporting this endeavor, as it will have some great discussion of Deism in its many articles. Blessings, all!!

I was responding to a discussion about early Mystical religion similarities, when I had an epiphany.

Basically. The mysteries of Dionysus describe a fallen god that died, and our spirit is comprised of its fallen body which gives us life. Plato described what is the "true good" as the "sun". For it gives us life.

Plato said the sun was the greatest good. It gives us life... I don't think he really understood the full consequence of his words. Yes... it is true. The sun does give us sustenance in the form of photosynthesis. It gives us warmth. Light by day that we can see. Even has given us the gift of sight, for without the sun's radiation, we would never evolve to see the light. In fact... if one took a snapshot of the sun's rays on Earth throughout history. One would see the sun birth life throughout time.

But what really blew my mind, was the similarity between the sun and god in early worship. Ra was symbolized as the sun. A phoenix is kind of akin to a sun. Rebirth through flame. Here's my point. Iron is only created in the core of a dying sun. A sun needed to die in order that we may have life. The sun is essential to carbon based life in two forms. The supernova is required, and constant bathing in the suns radiation is required for evolution to occur.

The mysteries of Dionysus describe Dionysus (a god) dying, and his heart or something splintering off into a thousand shards and spread about through the universe by the titans. These shards are what make up our souls. Our souls are made up of the divine spirit.

Now here's what's interesting. Constellations are what? Makeup of stars that represent deities. Nice huh. Suns = gods.

So... it gets more fun. So the "true good" is light. In fact... the language of god could be said to be light. God said, "let there be light" and there was light. Light is the source of our life.

I was wondering... if the sun itself was like an intelligent being. How could something that merely gives off life light ... intermix with the laws of the universe and create evolving life.

Here's my closing argument. Jesus is what? The son came to earth and died so we may have life? i.e. *A sun died, stardust came to earth so we may

I've noticed, from the minimal research I've done, that pandeism and pantheism seem very similar, I would greatly appreciate it if you could explain the differences. Thank you!

I'm reading over the wikipedia article, and the differences seem to be fairly negligible... Can someone help me understand the differences or something? I'm trying to figure out what I believe and I'm pretty sure it falls within the realm of one of these three philosophies...

Contest summary from Winning Writers:

>Free contest awards $250 Amazon.com gift card and anthology publication for articles, between 3,000 and 6,000 words, on Pandeism (the theological theory of the Creator becoming the Creation) by undergraduate and graduate students. To be eligible, students must be majoring in philosophy, theology, religious studies, social sciences, arts, literature, applied sciences, or comparable disciplines. Enter via email.

Contest details

• Sponsor: The Institute for Pandeism Studies
• Category: Academic article
• Submission length: 3,000-6,000 words
• Entry fee: No fee
• Awards: $250 Amazon gift card and anthology publication

Guidelines and submission information

This contest has been vetted and approved by Winning Writers

I mean the philosophy of the German Philipp Mainländer. For most people who have heard of or read about him, Philipp Mainländer is merely a curiosity, something I would like to see changed.I would like to reconstruct Mainländer as representing a philosophy of religion that can be taken systematically seriously.What is meant is not a physics-based reconstruction, which seems quite appropriate given cosmological concepts such as the singularity, the big bang, entropy, and the heat death of the universe.The following may well be consistent with Mainländer:

>Some things just come into being as the universe evolves and entropy and complexity grow: galaxies, planets, organisms, consciousness. In human terms, the dynamic nature of life manifests itself as desire. There is always something we want, even if what we want is to break free of the bonds of desire. That’s not a sustainable goal; to stay alive, we have to eat, drink, breathe, metabolize, and generally continue to ride the wave of increasing entropy. The universe is not a miracle. It simply is, unguided and unsustained, manifesting the patterns of nature with scrupulous regularity. Over billions of years it has evolved naturally, from a state of low entropy toward increasing complexity, and it will eventually wind down to a featureless equilibrium. (The big picture : on the origins of life, meaning, and the universe itself / Sean Carroll.)

For me, it is more about a philosophical reconstruction.I came up with the idea after a brief exchange with a philosopher of religion who told me the following:

>I have encountered views like Mainlander before, and I have never found them plausible. On most philosophical analyses of the nature of God, God is a necessarily existent being. Given necessary existence, it would be impossible for God to cease to exist. This is typically derived from cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God, but also the method of perfect being theology. [...] I guess I find Mainlander's position unmotivated. It doesn't sound to me that he is speaking of any being that could satisfy the concept of God.

Eduard von Hartmann also inspired me with a quotation:

>Mainländer's gospel that God died is not, as he thinks, the first scientific justification of atheism, but a metaphysical absurdity and a religious blasphemy.[Das Evangelium Mainländers, dass Gott gestorben sei (108), ist nicht, wie er meint, die erstmalige wissenschaftliche Begründung des Atheismus (