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
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) |
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.