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
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 "
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?