But can matter exist without gravity? We have no evidence for that either. But suppose the entire material universe consisted of a single object - even if gravity existed would it make any difference? In that case, would it not, like time and space, be a meaningless concept. Gravity, time and space are IMO, relational aspects of the existence of things - i.e. they describe how material things are related to other material things.TonyHawks 712 wrote:Gravity in and of itself cannot exist without matter
None of this, as you rightly point out, get us any closer to proving the existence or non-existence of God. But science doesn't really work like that anyway. In science you make observations and then formulate a hypothesis to to explain them. Then you design experiments to test your hypothesis and continue making observations. If your hypothesis works (i.e. successfully predicts what will be observed in your experiment) then you have a theory. And you keep doing experiments until the theory fails. A successful theory is one that accurately predicts the outcome of many observations and experiments.
And that, for me at least, answers your question "why pandeism?" Pandeism is (part of) my hypothetical God-model that allows me to test my observations of nature and compare the results with some theory of what I suppose God might be like. Like you, I am a Deist because I choose to believe (or "have faith" if you will) in the existence of a deity - but I am not satisfied to just let it rest there, I feel the urge to explore the nature of the God I choose to believe in and being of a slightly scientific bent, I like to have a specific model or hypothesis to work from. I don't know (yet) whether it is correct (in any respect), almost certainly I never will know for sure. But I don't know how else we can get to know anything about the Deity we suppose exists. Pure reason doesn't cut the mustard for me and, as (my idealistically-inclined Plato-Kantian friend ) Gnomon points out, seeing the ding an sich of anything is not possible for flesh and blood mortals, so our only option is to compare the indirect evidence we have to our models and hypotheses and our "knowledge" (of anything) is necessarily composed of theories. I don't see any compelling reason either to exclude God from our hypothetical models of reality or to exclude science from our theoretical reasoning about the possible existence and nature of God. In my ever-evolving-all-inclusive-process-pandeus God model its all (grains of "truth") grist to the constantly turning mill.