How does symbiotic panentheism differ from general panentheism?
by
Daniel J. Shepard
on Fri 29 Apr 2005 01:57 AM EDT
How does symbiotic panentheism differ from general panentheism?
Panentheism (general):
God’s knowledge includes all that there is to know; since the future is genuinely open, however, and is not in any sense real as yet, he knows it only as a set of possibilities of probabilities. In this alternative man is held to have significant freedom, participating as a co-creator with God in the continual creation of the world.
Encyclopedia Britannica, Volume 13, 15th Edition.
Symbiotic panentheism:
Regarding: ‘God’s knowledge includes all that there is to know; since the future is genuinely open, …’
Sp agrees.
Rationale: Since God is the Whole, including the whole of knowing, God knows all that is, all that there is to know. God, however, does not include what is not yet known. To suggest God knows what is not yet known is to suggest ‘what is not yet known’ is known and thus not an unknown.
The argument that the future is a book and God can open the book where ever he pleases does not circumvent the argument that the last page of the book is a ‘known’ factor as opposed to being an ‘unknown factor’.
Regarding: ‘…however, and is not in any sense real as yet, ‘
Sp would agree
Rationale: What ‘is not yet’, is what ‘is not known’ and thus is not in any sense real as yet.
Regarding: ‘… he knows it only as a set of possibilities of probabilities.’
Sp would say: ‘… he knows the future only as a set of possibilities of probabilities as it pertains to physical events governed by the laws of physics found within the physical universe. He does not know the future as a set of possibilities nor as a set of probabilities as it pertains to events governed by the laws of free will as it pertains to actions generated by individual souls given the latitude to act within said laws (laws of free will).
Rationale: To suggest that what ‘is not yet known’ is known is to contradict the concept of free will. Free will only becomes free will if the individual actually has the capacity to ‘create’ freely’ as opposed to choosing from a pre-created set of choices established by a ‘higher’ power.
Regarding: ‘ … In this alternative man is held to have significant freedom, participating as a co-creator with God in the continual creation of the world.’
Sp would say: ‘ … In this alternative the soul (human or otherwise) of all entities governed by the laws of free will is held to have significant freedom and significant responsibility, participating as a co-creator with God in the continual creation of God within which the individual soul will eventual find itself directly immersed as opposed to finding itself indirectly immersed when it is located within the physical universe.’
Rationale: If God is a ‘creator’ and the individual is a ‘creator’ (co-creator), then it only follows that the individual has a divine power.
It is said: ‘ and God created man in his image and in the image of God created he man’. Being all knowing and all powerful, the creation of man would be composed of the same substance and essence as God. It is from this understanding that the concept of ‘co-creator’ (an equal team effort for having created, is creating, and will be creating).
