RESPECTFULLY, pan-dualism is more plausible than pan-deism. All entities either are unique, or too different for perfect prediction. Plus, humans may be bound by some rules(genetics, environment, circumstances, etc.) but, without the fundamental choice to focus on life, human reason would be impossible. Plus, humans can lose all their cells yet survive and retain their individual identities. So, at least humans have some immaterial tracker(maybe souls). Pan-deism depends on the unlikely premise that a creator destroyed itself(thus, all existence are dubiously the creator’s debris). We don’t know who created us or how. Thus, pan-dualism has the most evidence, while making the least assumptions.
Raphael Lataster In short, everything is unique thus, either has a soul, or something else that marks an identity, forbidding contradictions.
What about panentheism??? All inclusive and not 'either or' !!
The difference is fundamentally important.
Precisely, Ann. I must say, as someone who has published quite a bit on pantheism, panentheism, and pandeism, I find it odd to be asked such a question without a proper explanation of this 'pandualism'.
The plausibility of pan-deism versus pan-dualism largely depends on individual philosophical perspectives.
- Pan-deism posits that God is immanent in the universe and that everything is part of a divine whole, suggesting a unified existence without a personal deity actively intervening. This view aligns well with naturalistic and holistic philosophies.
- Pan-dualism, on the other hand, emphasizes a dualistic nature where both the divine and the material world are distinct yet interconnected. This perspective can resonate with religious and spiritual traditions that recognize a personal deity or force alongside the material realm.
Ultimately, the preference for one over the other hinges on personal beliefs about the nature of divinity and existence.
- Badges
- Science topic