Pandeism vs. Atheism vs. Darwinism: Do they achieve the same result?
Is there any conceptual difference between "Pandeism" and "Atheism" and "Darwinism"?
It seems they achieve the same result about the universe's creation. I mean Pandeists achieve the same result about the universe's creation that Atheists or Darwinits achieve. Don't they?
atheism universe creationism
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
|
show 4 more comments
Is there any conceptual difference between "Pandeism" and "Atheism" and "Darwinism"?
It seems they achieve the same result about the universe's creation. I mean Pandeists achieve the same result about the universe's creation that Atheists or Darwinits achieve. Don't they?
atheism universe creationism
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
2
The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:26
So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:29
3
Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:36
So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:38
2
Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess.
– PeterJ
Nov 24 at 12:53
|
show 4 more comments
Is there any conceptual difference between "Pandeism" and "Atheism" and "Darwinism"?
It seems they achieve the same result about the universe's creation. I mean Pandeists achieve the same result about the universe's creation that Atheists or Darwinits achieve. Don't they?
atheism universe creationism
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
Is there any conceptual difference between "Pandeism" and "Atheism" and "Darwinism"?
It seems they achieve the same result about the universe's creation. I mean Pandeists achieve the same result about the universe's creation that Atheists or Darwinits achieve. Don't they?
atheism universe creationism
atheism universe creationism
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
edited Nov 24 at 13:15
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
6,62251344
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
asked Nov 24 at 11:01
sas
1284
1284
2
The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:26
So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:29
3
Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:36
So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:38
2
Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess.
– PeterJ
Nov 24 at 12:53
|
show 4 more comments
2
The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:26
So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:29
3
Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:36
So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:38
2
Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess.
– PeterJ
Nov 24 at 12:53
2
2
The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:26
The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:26
So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:29
So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:29
3
3
Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:36
Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:36
So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:38
So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:38
2
2
Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess.
– PeterJ
Nov 24 at 12:53
Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess.
– PeterJ
Nov 24 at 12:53
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism.
For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states:
Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.
The result for the pandeist is a universe with an origin and purpose through a deity. The concept of the universe contains the idea of at least a former deity.
For atheism, the Wikipedia link states:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
The result for the atheist is a universe with no deities either before or after its origination. The conceptual view of the universe contains no reference to a deity no matter how it originated.
This provides a conceptual difference between pandeism and atheism: one has a deity who became the universe and the other has no deities.
I will not consider Darwinism which could be reduced to a form of atheism especially as described by Alvin Plantinga. See his evolutionary argument against naturalism.
In general one should expect all theories to at least claim they conform to whatever the results are that we experience although their explanations and conceptual descriptions of those results may differ. They should all claim to be sufficient to produce those results or their theories would be falsified by the results.
That the results are achieved does not make the explanations how those results were achieved necessary. They would at best be sufficient to achieve the results, not necessary. Nor does it mean all the various explanations are the same.
References
"Atheism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Evolutionary argument against naturalism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
"Falsifiability", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Necessity and sufficiency", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
"Pandeism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
1
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
1
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
1
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
|
show 1 more comment
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "265"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57393%2fpandeism-vs-atheism-vs-darwinism-do-they-achieve-the-same-result%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism.
For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states:
Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.
The result for the pandeist is a universe with an origin and purpose through a deity. The concept of the universe contains the idea of at least a former deity.
For atheism, the Wikipedia link states:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
The result for the atheist is a universe with no deities either before or after its origination. The conceptual view of the universe contains no reference to a deity no matter how it originated.
This provides a conceptual difference between pandeism and atheism: one has a deity who became the universe and the other has no deities.
I will not consider Darwinism which could be reduced to a form of atheism especially as described by Alvin Plantinga. See his evolutionary argument against naturalism.
In general one should expect all theories to at least claim they conform to whatever the results are that we experience although their explanations and conceptual descriptions of those results may differ. They should all claim to be sufficient to produce those results or their theories would be falsified by the results.
That the results are achieved does not make the explanations how those results were achieved necessary. They would at best be sufficient to achieve the results, not necessary. Nor does it mean all the various explanations are the same.
References
"Atheism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Evolutionary argument against naturalism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
"Falsifiability", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Necessity and sufficiency", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
"Pandeism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
1
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
1
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
1
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
|
show 1 more comment
Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism.
For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states:
Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.
The result for the pandeist is a universe with an origin and purpose through a deity. The concept of the universe contains the idea of at least a former deity.
For atheism, the Wikipedia link states:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
The result for the atheist is a universe with no deities either before or after its origination. The conceptual view of the universe contains no reference to a deity no matter how it originated.
This provides a conceptual difference between pandeism and atheism: one has a deity who became the universe and the other has no deities.
I will not consider Darwinism which could be reduced to a form of atheism especially as described by Alvin Plantinga. See his evolutionary argument against naturalism.
In general one should expect all theories to at least claim they conform to whatever the results are that we experience although their explanations and conceptual descriptions of those results may differ. They should all claim to be sufficient to produce those results or their theories would be falsified by the results.
That the results are achieved does not make the explanations how those results were achieved necessary. They would at best be sufficient to achieve the results, not necessary. Nor does it mean all the various explanations are the same.
References
"Atheism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Evolutionary argument against naturalism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
"Falsifiability", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Necessity and sufficiency", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
"Pandeism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
1
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
1
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
1
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
|
show 1 more comment
Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism.
For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states:
Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.
The result for the pandeist is a universe with an origin and purpose through a deity. The concept of the universe contains the idea of at least a former deity.
For atheism, the Wikipedia link states:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
The result for the atheist is a universe with no deities either before or after its origination. The conceptual view of the universe contains no reference to a deity no matter how it originated.
This provides a conceptual difference between pandeism and atheism: one has a deity who became the universe and the other has no deities.
I will not consider Darwinism which could be reduced to a form of atheism especially as described by Alvin Plantinga. See his evolutionary argument against naturalism.
In general one should expect all theories to at least claim they conform to whatever the results are that we experience although their explanations and conceptual descriptions of those results may differ. They should all claim to be sufficient to produce those results or their theories would be falsified by the results.
That the results are achieved does not make the explanations how those results were achieved necessary. They would at best be sufficient to achieve the results, not necessary. Nor does it mean all the various explanations are the same.
References
"Atheism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Evolutionary argument against naturalism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
"Falsifiability", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Necessity and sufficiency", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
"Pandeism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
Using the links provided by the OP, there are differences in concepts and results between pandeism and atheism.
For pandeism, the Wikipedia link states:
Pandeism ... holds that the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe.
The result for the pandeist is a universe with an origin and purpose through a deity. The concept of the universe contains the idea of at least a former deity.
For atheism, the Wikipedia link states:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
The result for the atheist is a universe with no deities either before or after its origination. The conceptual view of the universe contains no reference to a deity no matter how it originated.
This provides a conceptual difference between pandeism and atheism: one has a deity who became the universe and the other has no deities.
I will not consider Darwinism which could be reduced to a form of atheism especially as described by Alvin Plantinga. See his evolutionary argument against naturalism.
In general one should expect all theories to at least claim they conform to whatever the results are that we experience although their explanations and conceptual descriptions of those results may differ. They should all claim to be sufficient to produce those results or their theories would be falsified by the results.
That the results are achieved does not make the explanations how those results were achieved necessary. They would at best be sufficient to achieve the results, not necessary. Nor does it mean all the various explanations are the same.
References
"Atheism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
"Evolutionary argument against naturalism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_argument_against_naturalism
"Falsifiability", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"Necessity and sufficiency", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
"Pandeism", Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
answered Nov 24 at 13:23
Frank Hubeny
6,62251344
6,62251344
1
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
1
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
1
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
|
show 1 more comment
1
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
1
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
1
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
1
1
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
Thank you for your answer. However, one thing is not yet clear to me is that when we say "Pandeism holds that the creator deity became the universe", does it mean the deity has been transformed to the universe knowingly intelligently and voluntarily ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 18:21
1
1
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
@sas That might not be something one can say about pandeism as a whole. One would have to limit it to what a particular pandeist thinks about it. It is the same with Christianity or Hinduism. One answer may not fit all. Such a question may already have been asked here. philosophy.stackexchange.com/q/36060/29944 However it is not exactly the same. You might pick a particular pandeist and formulate a question like that here. Make the question very specific and perhaps provide references to the work of that pandeist.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:26
1
1
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
My goodness. I just read that evolutionary argument against naturalism (I don't know if I've ever seen a poorer argument) but I'm having trouble seeing how it relates to your answer. Could you elaborate?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:35
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
@WilliamGrobman It is just a way to avoid having to talk about Darwinism and focus only on pandeism and atheism. In general Darwinism doesn't discuss the origins of the universe and so is not relevant. However, Plantinga's argument is relatively well known. Your concerns might be the subject of new questions you could pose here.
– Frank Hubeny
Nov 24 at 18:53
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
I'm not certain that you can use that to avoid Darwinism. His claim seems to be that Darwinism isn't likely consistent with atheism. Wouldn't that really make it another case to consider instead of allowing you to get around it in this answer?
– William Grobman
Nov 24 at 18:58
|
show 1 more comment
Thanks for contributing an answer to Philosophy Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphilosophy.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f57393%2fpandeism-vs-atheism-vs-darwinism-do-they-achieve-the-same-result%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
The basic difference is that Darwin's theory originated modern biology, i.e. a science, while Pandeism and Atheism had nothing to do with science
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:26
So, we may say that Darwinism proves Atheism scientifically. But how about Pandeism vs. Atheism?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:29
3
Why so ? Darwinism proves things about evolution genetics and so on. Abou God ... who knows ?
– Mauro ALLEGRANZA
Nov 24 at 11:36
So, you may want to say that Darwinism does not reject believing a God ?
– sas
Nov 24 at 11:38
2
Darwin's theory and Atheism have nothing to say about creation so my answer would be a definite no. The theories you list are equivalent only in the sense that all three are a claim of complete ignorance as to the world's creation. The 'result' they achieve is therefore rather similar, it not being a result at all. Only one of them says anything about creation and this is only a guess.
– PeterJ
Nov 24 at 12:53