Adding reason to faith :: a PanenDeist

This Month

Friday, January 20

Dialogue between a PanenDeist and a panentheist: 060103

by Daniel J. Shepard on Fri 20 Jan 2006 01:00 AM EST

Larry C. is building a model of reality which he calls ‘PanenDeism’. Like all thinkers participating on this site, Larry has put a great deal of thought into his model and is doing so for the betterment of humankind. Larry’s web sites: http://panendeism.com.futuresite.register.com/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/larrycopling/Introducing_Part_1.html

051230:

Dan: By the way, in my understanding, there is no distinction between how things work "in God" and how things work "in the universe" because they are essentially one in the same.

060103:

Larry: Thanks for the definition information from the person who wrote the article for Enclyclopedia Britannica (who may, or may not, personally agree with your conceptions or mine), but there is actually no inconsistency here. The operative term I used (on purpose) in my response was "essentially one in the same"; the idea being that, since all matter and life in the material universe is located within the Deity, it is the essence of the Creator that we all share. There is no physical seperation from the Creator (the Source of All) and the thing created (which, in essence, IS the Creator), since the thing created has been created from, and remains, within the Creator. We (and all matter) are literally made of "godstuff", if you will, and that is what I was referring to specifically.

Of course, one may think of (conceptualize) God as transcendent, immanent, equivalent or distinct in some manner. God is actually all of these; depending on the application of context. It is Panentheism (or, PanenDeism) which provides us with such freedom of thought. Pantheism "limits" us to equivalancy; Theism to ideas of transcendence and seperation.

And that brings us to the topic of Cosmology. According to Princeton scholars, Cosmology is defined as:

n 1: the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe 2: the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe.

(Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University)

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of panentheism or evolution in general?

Larry

060103:

Dan: In regards to your question: Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of panentheism or evolution in general?

There are two questions you have put forward and a third that is asked indirectly:

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of panentheism in general?

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of evolution in general?

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of cosmology in general?

Let me address each specifically so as not to leave the impression I am avoiding anything.

First:

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of panentheism in general?

Symbiotic panentheism does not ‘differ’ from other forms of panentheism in general. What symbiotic panentheism does do is address the issue of ‘ex nihilio’ head on. As far as I am aware, Hartshorne, Whitehead, Krause, Anderson, … have never done so. The issue of ‘ex nihilio’, although a nuance, is critical to any metaphysical model’s validity for without addressing the issue, a metaphysical model leaves itself incomplete in terms of philosophy, religion, and science.

As such symbiotic panentheism is ‘general panentheism completed’. Forms of panentheism will emerge such as: Christian panentheism, Islamic panentheism, Existential panentheism, Jewish panentheism, Phenomenological panentheism, Theoretical panentheism,… At some point all forms of panentheism will need to address the issue of ‘ex nihilio’ if they do not accept the concept of ‘symbiotic’ panentheism.

In addition symbiotic panentheism (general panentheism completed) initiates the emergence of three new branches of metaphysics: Metaphysical Engineering, Practical Metaphysics, Theoretical Metaphysics all of which are found within the site: www.panentheism.com. Feel free to ‘Google site’: http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/007.html for information regarding the three new branches of metaphysics.

Second:

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of evolution in general?

Symbiotic panentheism takes no specific stand regarding ‘evolution’ as presently debated within out society. The concepts of ‘evolution’, ‘no evolution’, ‘gene implants by ETs’, ‘ET’s submersed with human civilization’, etc. none of this affects the basic premise of symbiotic panentheism one way or the other. Symbiotic panentheism is quite capable of absorbing any ideas regarding life.

Having said that, symbiotic panentheism, as with all panentheism in general, verifies the concept that ‘God’ grows and we are one of its mechanisms for doing so i.e. symbiosis.

Third:

Does Symbiotic Panentheism offer any kind of cosmology, or explanation of evolution that differs from other forms of cosmology in general?

You provide a definition for cosmology: n 1: the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe 2: the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe.

In regards to:

1: the metaphysical study of the origin and nature of the universe

Symbiotic panentheism is a metaphysical model suggesting ‘one’ possible explanation as to ‘the origin and nature of the universe’. The model is supported by a vast quantity of scientific observation and theory, religious beliefs and historical texts, and philosophical dialectics and ‘schools.

2: the branch of astrophysics that studies the origin and evolution and structure of the universe.

Symbiotic panentheism does something astrophysics is presently unwilling to do and that is to look ‘beyond’ the limits of the physical universe itself, ask the question: What is it the physical universe lies ‘within’?, and then answer that very question based upon information collected by not just one or two of the three - philosophy, science, and religion - but rather collected by all three of the three.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Thursday, January 19

Dialogue between a PanenDeist and a panentheist - 051230b

by Daniel J. Shepard on Thu 19 Jan 2006 01:00 AM EST

Larry C. is building a model of reality which he calls ‘PanenDeism’. Like all thinkers participating on this site, Larry has put a great deal of thought into his model and is doing so for the betterment of humankind. Larry’s web sites: http://panendeism.com.futuresite.register.com/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/larrycopling/Introducing_Part_1.html

051230b

Dan: Panentheism states `all in God', symbiotic panentheism describes how things work in God as opposed to how things work in the universe.

In terms of your statement, can you elaborate? How is panendeism a variant of the `all in God' class of conception?

Larry: I am beginning to grow weary with explaining the difference between PanenTheism and PanenDeism, but I will try one more time with yet another approach...

Dan: My apologies. Sometimes I am not very quick.

In essence it appears your last statements, as quoted below, best explain the differences:

Larry: By the way, in my understanding, there is no distinction between how things work "in God" and how things work "in the universe" because they are essentially one in the same…

Dan: ‘…because they are essentially one in the same…’ This appears pantheistic. This is not a criticism. (Source: The Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 13, 1974: ‘Pantheism is monistic in finding the world’s unity a sense of the divine.’ ‘Classical theism is dualistic in conceiving God as separated from the world and mind from body.’ ‘Panentheism is typically monistic in holding to the unity of God and the world, dualistic in urging the separateness of God’s essence from the world, and pluralistic in taking seriously the multiplicity of the kinds of beings and events making up the world.’)

Larry: …One of the inferior philosophical elements found in classical Theism that seems to remain in the mind of many who embrace Panentheism is the idea of "separation" (known technically as, "Transcendence"). …

Dan: (Source: The Encyclopedia Britannica Vol. 13, 1974: ‘ Expressions of the divine as intimate rather than as alien, as indwelling and near dwelling rather than remote, characterize pantheism and panentheism as contrasted with Classical Theism. Such immanence encourages man’s sense of individual participation in the divine life without the necessity of mediation by any institutions.’ ‘Classical Theism has, in consequence, held to the transcendence of God, his existence over and beyond the universe.’ ‘…panentheism – unlike pantheism, which holds to the divine immanence – maintains that the divine can be both transcendent and immanent at the same time.’)

Larry: It is very difficult for some who were reared in theistic circles to let go of that concept.

Dan: Agreed

Larry: There is no God "out there somewhere".

Dan: ‘…panentheism – unlike pantheism, which holds to the divine immanence – maintains that the divine can be both transcendent and immanent at the same time.'(from above)

Larry: There is no seperation between the Creator and the thing created.

Dan: ‘Panentheism is typically monistic in holding to the unity of God and the world, dualistic in urging the separateness of God’s essence from the world, and pluralistic in taking seriously the multiplicity of the kinds of beings and events making up the world.’(from above)

Larry: Applying the Buddist concept of "detachment" in this area has been very helpful to me.

Dan: I understand.

Larry: You know, if I keep this up, I'm going to get that book written yet!

Dan: You very well may.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Wednesday, January 18

Dialogue between a PanenDeist and a panentheist - 051230a

by Daniel J. Shepard on Wed 18 Jan 2006 01:00 AM EST

Larry C. is building a model of reality which he calls ‘PanenDeism’. Like all thinkers participating on this site, Larry has put a great deal of thought into his model and is doing so for the betterment of humankind. Larry’s web sites: http://panendeism.com.futuresite.register.com/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/larrycopling/Introducing_Part_1.html

051230a

Larry: Let me first dispense with a misunderstanding you have that I
have overlooked until now- I absolutely know the difference
between "All IS God" and "All IN God". The former is Pantheism and
the latter is PanENtheism. I have spelled this out clearly for my
readers on both the PanenDeism.com website and the article I referred
to earlier. When I mentioned both in my previous post, I was giving
paranthetical examples of simply-stated overviews, not using them
both to describe Panentheism. So, having cleared that up, let me
address a question or two I have about your most recent posting..

Dan: OK

Dan: The fascinating thing about `panentheism' is that it is an
understanding of reality which has no need for what a `conceiver may
feel is warranted' but is quite capable of absorbing most previously
established perceptions of God or the lack of God for that matter.
This is what makes panentheism such an exciting concept.

Larry: This is circular reasoning (including the word being defined
in the definition). There was NO concept of Panentheism before
1828. There was no concept of Pantheism during the stone age. I
agree that Panentheism is an exciting "new" explanation of reality
(both manifested and unmanifested) that far surpasses previous
attempts (and PanenDeism includes that exciting "All In God"
conception), but it is still a mental construct. We are simply
discussing the differences between one mental construct
("conception") and another. The mental construct we decide to use is
just "the finger pointing to the moon"; it is not THE moon, itself.

Therefore, Panentheism is NOT "...quite capable of absorbing most
previously established perceptions of God...". A concept cannot DO
anything- it is just a mental construct. It is the conceiver that
does the doing.

Dan: OK

Dan: [Symbiotic Panentheism] Establishes a rational understanding why
it is not `Why does something exist rather than nothing?' but rather
the question becomes: Why does something and nothing exist? Symbiotic
panentheism provides a rational explanation as to how it is
`nothingness' not only exists as a state of being but exists as a
functional existence which is in a symbiotic relationship with God.

Larry: I'm afraid you are losing me here, my friend. "Nothingness"
not only exists, but is a state of being"? …

Dan: I grant you it is a very different and therefore difficult
concept but it does explain the rationality regarding the concept
of `creating' the universe `ex nihilio' and any metaphysical model of
reality has no choice but to address this issue.

Larry: …This illogical statement has no meaning to me, unless what
you refer to as "nothingness" is actually "unmanifested reality". …

Dan: No that is not what I am referring to.

Larry: …In Panentheism, ALL that IS in located within
God. "Nothingness" is, again, just a mental construct- not objective
reality. This common error of logic is what philosopher Alfred North
Whitehead called the "fallacy of misplaced concreteness." We must
remain on the same conceptual page in order to discuss such things
rationally…

Dan: Lets leave the concept of nothingness out of the discussion not
because it is irrational to discuss but because it is such an alien
idea.

Larry: …I spent many years as a professional songwriter in Nashville,
TN. I have experienced the co-creative process of bringing a song
into existence many times. The inspiration itself may have been a
word or phrase or a particular memory; while the creative "urge",
itself, pre-existed me and comes from the Source of all inspiration-
God. What started as an idea began to take shape as a completed
composition that took the form of physical audio waveforms recorded
in a professional studio and pressed onto a CD.

Did the song actually exist before I was born? That is a
philosophical question. But the word "nothing" is a valid label (as
all words are simply "labels") that expresses the idea of not
existing in thought or physicality. To state that "nothingness" has
concrete, objective existence as a "state of being" makes no sense.
It is like saying that an apple is an orange.

Dan: As I suggested previously, let's leave the concept of
nothingness for now. If you wish to read a little about the concept
you can go to my web site, specifically:
http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/0000314.html

Harvard web site regarding Hartshorne: Hartshorne contends that
Anselm discovered something important about the idea of deity: that
any being that exists with the possibility of not existing (that is,
contingently) cannot be God.

Larry: In reading the writings of Anselm myself, I'm not sure I
follow Hartshorne's logic, but it becomes irrelevant in our
discussion because Anselm was attempting to prove the existence of a
Theistic God, not a Panentheistic one. Let me explain...
In the eleventh century, the existence of God was just a given.
However, they had a theistic conception of God. Our modern
panentheistic conception would have been considered blasphemous back
then. Anselm offered a "proof" of God's existence (known as
the "ontological argument") that was designed to appeal to the
rational thinkers of his day. Simply stated, Anselm's "proof" said
that, in order for God (who is perfect) to exist, nothing greater
than God can possibly be imagined (since there is nothing greater
than perfection)…

Dan: I'm sorry but your personal interjections here are tainting
Anselm's intent.

Quote: Anselm began with the premise that by `God' is meant `the
greates being conceivable', or, in Anslem's exact words, `a being
than which nothing greater can be conceived. 'Philosophy – The Power
of Ideas by Moore and Bruder, 1993.

This understanding of Anselm leads to the verification of panentheism
for no other concept of God is conceivably greater. The concept
of `perfection' was not the issue. The issue was specifically `a
being than which nothing greater can be conceived.'

Larry: …This proof falls apart in a Panentheistic conception because
Panentheism changes the frame of the argument- God is not
necessarily "perfect", …

Dan: see above...

Larry: …but is everywhere present. In fact, in PanenDeism, God is
actively "becoming" more than It was as evolution continues to move
forward ("evolution" being just the biological component
of "Providence"; which posits a far broader process which includes
evolution).

Dan: Panentheism agrees with the basic concept you suggest.

Larry: Any conception of Deity is simply an attempt to make sense of
our perceptions and observations.

Dan: I would suggest it is our perceptions and observations that we
use to make sense of God which in turn leads us to understanding our
purpose in life.

Larry: Panentheism greatly expands our earlier conceptions of what
God must Be, in order to Be at all.

Dan: Agreed.

Larry: PanenDeism is a variant of the "All IN God" class of
conceptions that embraces a more Deistic understanding of how things
must work in the universe.

Dan: Panentheism states `all in God', symbiotic panentheism describes
how things work in God as opposed to how things work in the universe.
In terms of your statement, can you elaborate? How is panendeism a
variant of the `all in God' class of conception?

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Tuesday, January 17

Dialogue between a PanenDeist and a panentheist - 051228

by Daniel J. Shepard on Tue 17 Jan 2006 01:00 AM EST

Larry C. is building a model of reality which he calls ‘PanenDeism’. Like all thinkers participating on this site, Larry has put a great deal of thought into his model and is doing so for the betterment of humankind. Larry’s web sites: http://panendeism.com.futuresite.register.com/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/larrycopling/Introducing_Part_1.html

051228

Larry:

Larry: Feel free to add our discussions to your blog, and a link or two to my sites would be very much appreciated!

Dan: Thanks. I will be posting it soon.

In regards to the following post, please excuse the length of the reply. You have opened up the discussion to generality and as such there is a huge amount of material to cover. I have only been able to scratch the surface here.

Larry: I agree that Panentheism (like other conceptions of Deity) can be simply stated ("all IS God", "all IN God", etc.)…

Dan: I must take issue here. I did say panentheism simply states: ‘all in God’. I did not say panentheism simply states: ‘all is God’. In fact I do not agree with the second statement: panentheism simply states: ‘all is God’. Although this is a nuance it is an important nuance. To limit the size of God to being just Itself is to limit God. Therefore, the concept of an existence void God must be addressed by any metaphysical model and the concept of individuality mut be addressed by any metaphysical model. The former describes one of the first variances symbiotic panentheism has with Hartshorne’s model and with Whitehead and Alan Anderson. While symbiotic panentheism recognizes the existence of a lack of God, symbiotic panentheism clearly demonstrates that such an existence must be ‘located’ within God and thus symbiotic panentheism remains a form of ‘pure’ panentheism.

Larry: …and can be very limited in their usefulness as a term, but I would disagree that "All In God" is all that Panentheism is.

Dan: You may disagree but what else is there to the word. See below…

Larry: The word, "conception", by definition, contains much more than a simply stated overview. As a matter of fact, the archaic meaning of the word, "conception" relates to "a beginning; a start."

Dan: So it does and the fact that it is ‘a beginning, a start’ is the very reason panentheism acts as the universal foundation for the ‘relatively’ new expanded model of reality.

Larry: A conception of Deity speaks directly to that Deity's nature; which includes a simply-stated overview such as "All in God",…

Dan: Yes, and in the case of panentheism the ‘nature’ being stated deals with the neutrality of ‘inclusion’ as opposed to personality traits, judgmental traits, anger management, desires, needs, expectations …

Larry: …but can include as much more as the conceiver may feel is warranted…

Dan: The fascinating thing about ‘panentheism’ is that it is an understanding of reality which has no need for what a ‘conceiver may feel is warranted’ but is quite capable of absorbing most previously established perceptions of God or the lack of God for that matter. This is what makes panentheism such an exciting concept.

Larry: …in order to complete that particular general conception.

Dan: Panentheism – all in God. Simple, complete, specific, no generalities. It is from this beginning that we jump into various forms of panentheism.

Larry: All of what I have described about traditional Theism (human-looking, male Being on a Great White Throne, existing outside of physical universe, all-knowing, etc.) is included within the "conception" of theism.

Dan: OK

Larry: As a matter of fact, so much has been added to the conception of theism over the centuries that finding a simply-stated overview for Theism (such as "All in God" for PanenTheism) would be a difficult task!

Dan: Really?

Larry: In your conception, you focus on the adjective, "symbiotic"; which I would agree is a fact of nature in general,

Dan: OK, but keep in mind panentheism is a metaphysical concept that must also deal with the non-physical aspect of existence.

Larry: …but I would be interested in learning how your version of Panentheism differs from that found in, say, Hartshorne, Alan, or Whitehead.

Dan: The metaphysical system I have been developing has emerged independent of the three. As such I have no expertise regarding the work of these thinkers. I did find some information on the internet that may help with our discussion but I don’t know just how deep you want to go with this topic. The information can be found at: http://www.Harvard web sitesquarelibrary.org/Hartshorne/Viney/8.html and http://neweverymoment.com/

The issues which set symbiotic panentheism apart from Hartshorne, Anderson, and Whitehead are numerous. This is not to say the three are incorrect, I would rather suggest the differences have to do with the technical aspects and nuances regarding metaphysics. For now I will address just a few of the specifics listed from the web sites I can, just let me know. But briefly put I would say:

Symbiotic panentheism:

Establishes a rational understanding why it is not ‘Why does something exist rather than nothing?’ but rather the question becomes: Why does something and nothing exist? Symbiotic panentheism provides a rational explanation as to how it is ‘nothingness’ not only exists as a state of being but exists as a functional existence which is in a symbiotic relationship with God. Such a concept reinforces the argument that all existences, even the existence of ‘nothingness’, have purpose/significance and interact in a symbiotic manner with God.

Specifics: The following are some direct comparisons, excuse the brevity and complexity.

Harvard web site regarding Hartshorne: Hartshorne contends that Anselm discovered something important about the idea of deity: that any being that exists with the possibility of not existing (that is, contingently) cannot be God.

Symbiotic panentheism demonstrates the possibility that existence and nothingness exist simultaneously. Within the model of symbiotic panentheism ‘nothingness/non-existence’ could rationally be ‘conceived by’, ‘created within’, and act in a symbiotic fashion with God. Thus the rationality symbiotic panentheism is capable of bestowing upon religious perception of creation from a void, cosmological theories of an expanding and/or contracting physical universe, and metaphysical perceptions of ‘first cause’. Understanding the scenario regarding ‘something’ or ‘nothing’ becoming ‘something’ and ‘nothing’ is lacking in Hartshorne’s, Anderson’s, and Whitehead’s works but is voluminously addressed on my site.

In addition, understanding that ‘nothingness’ could both exist within God and having a purpose/functionality in terms of God, clearly reinforces the concept that we, individuals, surely are no less significant than nothingness and thus we too must surely not only exist but have purpose/functionality in terms of God. Surely there is no philosophical dialectic which could rationally argue: Human individuals are LESS than nothingness.

Harvard web site regarding Hartshorne: Therefore, either God exists without the possibility of not existing or God cannot exist.

Symbiotic panentheism clearly demonstrates both God existing and not existing are not only possible but most likely probable. Again a difference between myself and the three you mentioned who state the two existing simultaneously is impossible. In the case of God not existing, such an existence would be a subset of God Itself as opposed to God being a subset of non-existence.

Harvard web site regarding Hartshorne: n other words, God’s existence is either necessary or impossible:

Symbiotic pantheism demonstrates that God existing is not a necessity but rather just ‘is’ and demonstrates that God not existing is not necessarily so but rather is a choice God choices to implement or not implement as God decides for reasons we are quite capable of understanding (see: www.panentheism.com).

Harvard web site regarding Hartshorne: a contingent divine existence is a contradiction.

Symbiotic panentheism demonstrates that a ‘contingent’ divine existence is not a contradiction.

Harvard web site regarding Hartshorne: The argument shows, however, that any argument for or against the existence of God that assumes that God is equally conceivable either as existent or nonexistent is fallacious.

Symbiotic panentheism would agree with this.

Anderson web site: regarding panentheism:

Anderson web site:We respect but reject the myth that there is only one mind.There is nothing but mind, but this does not mean that there is only one mind; there are innumerable minds,

Symbiotic panentheism demonstrates there is the non – discrete omniscience knowing – God and there are the discrete – individual knowing

Anderson web site: God is no mere principle, but is the ultimate experience (or succession of experiences).

Symbiotic panentheism would agree but would add the term ‘and more including things that are unmanefested and unmanifestable to humans.

Anderson web site: In common with us, God is a person, meaning that God is conscious, rational, and value-oriented.

Symbiotic panentheism could but would not necessarily agree with the concept ‘value – oriented’

Anderson web site: God is the ultimate, non-human person, inherently personal, not merely personal in relation to us.

Symbiotic panentheism: Symbiotic panentheism demonstrates the understanding that the essence of the individual human is composed of the same substance and essence as God.

Anderson web site: It is only by being perfectly personal that God can be perfectly impartial.

Symbiotic panentheism: Impartial?????

Anderson web site:Experiences are fleeting, but last forever. Experiences come and go in split-seconds, but are preserved forever, most clearly in the mind called God.

Symbiotic panentheism: Yes but also in the individuals mind – nothing is lost even human individuality

Anderson web site: The elimination contest: Alternatives to metaphysical idealism, which is the view that all is spirit or mind:

Symbiotic panentheism demonstrates that the physical universe is real and the outside of the physical universe is real. The two are in fact real illusions depending upon if you are standing in the first and speaking of the second or standing in the second and speaking of the first.

Anderson web site: (2) Metaphysical dualism: a common-sensical assumption that mind and matter are equally real. This view is filled with defects, including the problem of how spatially extended matter and spaceless mind ever could come together in knowledge or influence of either on the other.

See above.

Anderson web site: We say that while all is mind, there is no good reason to believe that there is only one mind. Indeed, there are wonderful reasons for believing that there are many minds. So this is a pluralistic idealism. All mind, but many minds.

Symbiotic panentheism: =Both exist: All mind and many minds

Anderson web site: We claim little or no credit for originality, except that we drew on various sources and put them together meaningfully, as no one else had done, as far as we know.

Dan: Likewise.

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos

Monday, January 16

Dialogue between a PanenDeist and a panentheist - 051226

by Daniel J. Shepard on Mon 16 Jan 2006 01:00 AM EST

Larry C. is building a model of reality which he calls ‘PanenDeism’. Like all thinkers participating on this site, Larry has put a great deal of thought into his model and is doing so for the betterment of humankind. Larry’s web sites:http://panendeism.com.futuresite.register.com/index.html

http://www.geocities.com/larrycopling/Introducing_Part_1.html

051226

Larry:

(The following dialogue is presented out of order)

Larry: It may be that my presence here in this discussion of "panentheism" is inappropriate. Having said that, I remain open to discussions here as long as my contributions are warranted and welcomed.

Dan: Larry, This site is Steve’s not mine and I am only here with his permission. Having said that, let me say: Personally, I hope you will feel comfortable with recognizing that you have the same status on this site as the rest of us and that Steve has the right to remove any of us from this site any time and has no obligation to explain why he made such a decision. In short we are all his guests. Thanks Steve.

Larry: At some point in my life, I wish to complete the original project of writing a book that will tie all of my research and ideas concerning PanenDeism together, as you have done with your system. Until then, I suppose I will just have to "muddle through"!

Dan: I’ve looked at your web sites. I like them. Verbiage is not a sign of quality and I say this in spite of myself.

Larry: I did consider the terms "Deistic Panentheism" or "Pantheistic Deism", but having a one-word expression that combines the two components of those two terms has much more appeal to me. Personally, I happen to believe that the deistic components (not to mention the completely differing types of Process Thought used as a basis) of PanenDeism presents more than enough distinction as to be considered a separate thought system from what is commonly referred to as "panentheism". Giving up a certain "unity" with other panentheistic thought systems is unfortunate, but unavoidable.

There is a difference between "consilience" and "unity", however. I am not so concerned about "unity" just for unity's sake, but I am very interested in exploring the details of both forms of "panentheistic" expression so that some form of spiritual consilience can occur between the two camps.

Dan: Great, let’s get to it.

Since I suggested: ‘Let’s get to it’, why don’t I begin:

Panentheism states one thing, all is in God. Panentheism states nothing else nor suggests nothing else. Panentheism does not allude to God’s personality, God’s preferences, God’s laws, God’s … Again I’ll say it, because it needs to be said and needs to be fully understood, panentheism states one and only one thing, all is in God.

It is important to understand that the statement, all is in God, is how the theists would interpret the concept. The Atheist would say, all is in the whole. The mathematician would say, all is in the ‘universal set’ (The word ‘universal’ to the mathematician does not refer to the physical universe)

Having stated and restated what panentheism states let me state what symbiotic panentheism states:

Using sound bites, which are dangerous things to use, symbiotic panentheism states:

1.         All is in God

2.         God needs the elements found within it to ‘be dynamic’

3.         The elements found within God need the existence of God to ‘be dynamic’

Symbiotic panentheism is a model of reality which addresses three questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist?

The questions: Who are we? How did we come to be? Are important questions and are addressed within more detailed discussions of the model.

The methodology used to attack the questions was very specific: A consensus to each question must be reached by three groups: Observation/measurement predominantly represented by science, ancient texts/beliefs predominantly represented by religion, and rationality/logic predominantly represented by philosophical dialects past and present.

Each of these three areas represents one of the three means we have of perceiving reality.

Truth was the goal. Personal appeal, personal beliefs, personal hopes, personal faith, personal… were to be discarded in order to view whatever it was that emerged from the process.

The order of the three questions was critical for very specific reasons. I would be more than willing to discuss the reasons if and when you suggest we do so.

So to the questions:

Where are we? We are ‘within’ the whole. Religions would define the ‘whole’ as God:

Panentheism.

What are we? We are consciousness. Our most significant substance and essence appears to be our ability to know, our ability to be aware of…, our consciousness.

Why do we exist? It appears; since what we have in common universally is consciousness and we all experience the physical uniquely, that our purpose is to do just that, uniquely develop our consciousness of experiencing. But for what purpose? To add to the totality of consciousness, to add to the whole of consciousness, or in the scientific sense ‘to grow ‘the whole of consciousness’, in the religious sense ‘to grow God’, in the philosophical sense ‘to grow Being’:

Symbiosis.

After this the questions just materialize out of thin air like moths drawn to the light and thus the verbiage of my sites.

Dan

Personal question: I have a blog site, http://panentheism.blogharbor.com/blog, within which I have held several discourses. One was with a Neo-Buddhist and another with a Poly-Solipsist. If you have no objections, I would like to place our dialogue on the site with their dialogues. You can check the dialogues out at the above site under the icon ‘Response to’.

It is not a problem if you would prefer not to have the dialogue placed on the blog. I would appreciate it if you would let me know one way or the other.

On the blog site I list myself as djs and would list you as lc. I would also be happy to list your web site address if you so indicate.

Again thanks, Larry:

Leave Comment | Permanent Link | Cosmos