2007-02-22 06:03:27 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I think therefore I am.
2007-02-22 06:06:02 · answer #1 · answered by Tribble Macher 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Pandeism is a term that has been used at various times to describe religious beliefs. It is now particularly addressed to syncretist concepts incorporating or mixing elements of pantheism (that God is identical to the universe) and deism (that the creator-god who designed the universe no longer exists in a status where he can be reached, and can instead be confirmed only by reason). It is therefore most particularly "the belief that God precedes the universe and is the universe's creator, [and] that the universe is currently the entirety of God",[1] with some adding the contention that "the universe will one day coalesce back into a single being, God".[2]
This use has been inconsistent over time - modern usage has described (or contrasted) the nature of God as described by broader philosophical systems, but the term has also occasionally been misused to refer dismissively to this, and also to simultaneous belief in all religions, or some elements thereof. Some 19th century figures (particularly religionist Godfrey Higgins, later echoed by occult figure John Ballou Newbrough) used the term to describe the beliefs that they attributed to a particular cult or sect, the worshipers of a group of gods called Pans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandeism
read this article, you will learn your answer there!!!!
2007-03-01 22:43:08 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sorry, are you able to probable rephrase that as some style of coherent assertion? What atheist arguments? Atheist in simple terms deny that there is a god, they don't % any argument, the onus is on the claimant, the theist, to coach what they assert And the place do you get the devil fees from?
2016-12-17 16:21:18 · answer #3 · answered by dricketts 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That it isn't reasonable to believe in things that there is no evidence for.
I do allow for a slight possibility of this being the case, but I think the total lack of any evidence at all makes the odds extremely low. I also can't see that it would really matter.
2007-02-22 06:10:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
More or less it would be the same argument used for a Theistic god.
2007-02-22 06:29:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its all based on evidence and personal observations. I have no evidence nor have I personally observed anything that would lead me to believe that there is a deity of any kind, regardless of whether its the judeo-christian god or krishna. That's my argument.
2007-02-22 06:09:28 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Same argument. Nothing supernatural exists, whether it's one or many.
By the way Tribble Macher, it's I am, therefore I'll think.
2007-02-22 06:07:13 · answer #7 · answered by taa 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
All deities are metaphors. They are symbols for something the human mind cannot comprehend.
2007-02-22 06:10:00 · answer #8 · answered by KC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As long as the one you are talking about is not logically impossible or self-contradictory then the best you can do is agnosticism.
2007-02-22 06:06:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
That we don't have to argue against it. If someone claims that gods exist, they have to argue FOR it.
2007-02-22 06:08:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
the best evidence that there is no god(s) is the total lack of any evidence.
2007-02-22 06:07:24 · answer #11 · answered by Samurai Jack 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋