tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8592695138987190221.post5207308914828048436..comments2012-12-14T21:51:33.202-08:00Comments on A Twenty First Century Druid: For my followers etcPhilhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12072605651804059904noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8592695138987190221.post-81683610976336381012011-07-21T02:43:13.076-07:002011-07-21T02:43:13.076-07:00And lastly, as for the oscillating Universe proble...And lastly, as for the oscillating Universe problem -- well I don't think it is necessary, and my reasoning for such is reflected here: http://pandeism.blogspot.com/2007/05/one-universe-everything-that-is-goes-in.htmlKnujehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02106711599558787764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8592695138987190221.post-50656519622294485552011-07-21T02:15:35.751-07:002011-07-21T02:15:35.751-07:00Now, as to your especial points of concern. First...Now, as to your especial points of concern. First, as to the danger of life being 'wiped out' by a cataclysm such as a supernova. Certainly something like that could wipe out all life on a planet. But ours is a Universe of literally hundreds of billions of galaxies, every one of them made up of hundreds of billions of stars, and existing over billions of years, perhaps with hundreds of billions more to come. In sum, if ours is a Universe designed with physics geared toward life arising, then there's plenty of time and space for it to occur billions of times, enough so that a few supernovae here and there won't make more than a scratch in the total population of our Universe.Knujehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02106711599558787764noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8592695138987190221.post-21348961463725323562011-07-21T02:07:27.975-07:002011-07-21T02:07:27.975-07:00I do think there comes a point where Pandeism, bro...I do think there comes a point where Pandeism, broadly defined, and Panendeism, broadly defined, overlap like a Venn diagram. For, were one to consider the conscious entity existing prior to the creation of our Universe, and then again after the culmination of our Universe, and count this as the '-en-' in Panendeism, then Panendeism becomes simply one form of Pandeism (contrasted against those less spiritual models of Pandeism where the creation of our Universe spells the permanent end of our Creator). And, contrariwise, were one to consider the nature of the Deus of Pandeism -- noninterfering, nonjudging, nonobserving, nonconscious, and yet still continuously sustaining and binding all things together -- and count this as '-en-' in Panendeism, then this spiritual form of Pandeism itself becomes simply one form of Panendeism.<br /><br />There is, I confess, a very human tendency to get caught up with putting things in label boxes. In some instances, this is justified, as with theological traditions which suppose that our Creator has consciously and narrowly communicated one set of rules to one set of humans through an ancient tome which it never updates, and which sets forth many categories of activities (such as eating the wrong food, wearing the wrong clothes, touching the wrong body parts, or marrying the wrong race or sex or tribe) for which the itinerant doer is claimed to both deserve, and receive, an eternal punishment. Those types of beliefs can properly be labelled into a box marked 'nonsense.' But then, when we come to the whole continuum of Deism/Pantheism/Pandeism/Panentheism/Panendeism, there are many potential worlds of meaning attached to each of these, with great overlap. But I yet prefer 'Pandeism' as a descriptor, for it captures the essence of the idea that the most essential theological model includes the elements which define classical Deism, and those which define classical Pantheism, and requires nothing more.Knujehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02106711599558787764noreply@blogger.com