What if God and nature are one and the same? That is the basic definition of Pantheism. So what, then, is the definition of Pandeism?
I have heard multiple answers. The Wikipedia answer is that God created the universe and then became the universe, and as a result, God no longer exists as a separate entity. Pantheists do not believe in a personal God, which normally would be a characteristic of Theism. Panentheism and Panendeism are beliefs that God encompasses all of nature but also transcends and extends beyond nature.
The Trinion Contradictions demonstrate how a design, detailed arrangement, or established plan, negates the idea of individual power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. It also negates the idea of direct intervention or the need to request such intervention.
In addition, the ability to act at one's own discretion would ultimately alter any established plan and void any such advanced arrangement or design due to what is known about “cause and effect”.
Any intervention would then negate the assumed reasons behind free will. Aid would not and could not be rendered by way of prayer if a plan were in place. Such actions would negate free will and would alter any established plan.
The Trinion Contradictions clearly demonstrate that Free Will, Destiny, and Intervention cannot and do not coexist and that one cannot equal the other.
Originally Posted By: Sean McGrath
Anyone who has an interest in Deism has probably noticed that no two Deists are alike. Unlike most traditional belief systems, Deists do not have a universally accepted "guide book". Some Deists rely heavily upon the words of Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason", but most modern Deists draw upon a vast array of sources. On a journey through the world of today's Deism, you will also note that there are several accepted branches of Deism. It can be somewhat confusing to the casual observer, but if you have a genuine interest in Deism, the information is readily available on this Forum, and its partner Forums.
In pre-digital times, people used to keep photographs in albums. As I was growing up, the albums were a dreaded part of the routine whenever anyone came home to visit. I remember cringing as Mum unfurled the pages with the most embarrassing, sometimes even downright ugly representations of me as a child. Of course, mixed in with them were quaint similes of innocence, poignant reminders of lost youth and long forgotten friendships and symbols of the rites of passage indicating the inexorable march of time and the inevitable erasure of infantile purity.
But Brothers who up Reason's Hill
Advance with hopeful cheer, ---
O! loiter not these heights are chill,
As chill as they are clear;
And still restrain your haughty gaze,
The loftier that ye go,
Remembering distance leaves a haze
On all that lies below
Nature can never be completely described, for such a description of Nature would have to duplicate Nature. - Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching, (translated by Archie J. Bahm, 1958)
As a youngster I loved maps. I would spend hours poring over the details of faraway places, intrepidly crossing rivers, hacking my way through remote rainforests and visiting vast metropolises in the distant corners of the globe and still be safely home in time for dinner. Of course the map is no substitute for actually being there, clambering up the slippery stones or feeling the dank humidity of the jungle. Nevertheless, maps are wonderfully useful things. But they can also be frustratingly difficult to interpret. A square inch on the map might translate to a full square mile with a myriad confusing and complex features on the ground. Sometimes a larger scale, more detailed map might help. But there are limits. In Lewis Carroll's Sylvie and Bruno Concluded, a character talks of a map that had been made at a scale of "a mile to the mile". Being so large, the map had never been spread out and the people had reverted to using the country itself as its own map and found it did "nearly as well".