I certainly do like the principles in the above essay, or to be more precise, its well-put statements of fact (as we know them today). But I do differ, sometimes rather strongly, about some of the conclusions. Nevertheless, I’m most sympathetic to the author’s truly benevolent aims.
The problem, to my mind, is that many of the syllogisms in this essay are somewhat anthropocentric. The main point - which our learned friend puts forward in his essay – seems to be a Spinoza-like idea of the world: the Universe and God are identical, God and the world are just different names for the same thing. This is a rather reasonable statement, semantically speaking. But why does it need to be bolstered by trying to conjure up a Creator? That’s an enigma, to me at least. But then, I’m a European, so I don’t know these things in depth.
Anyway, the argument concerning the existence of a Creator seems, in the above essay, to hang on the fact that, without any reasonable doubt, there does exist a Creation. Clearly, if there is no Creation, then there is no Creator. However, we can prove, beyond any reasonable doubt – as the author of the essay has admirably done – that Creation exists. Hence the Creator exists.
In my native language, it never rains. Instead, rain falls – or rain is experienced. The semantic point is that in this particular language the way of expressing rain lacks any trace of “it”. There is no agent whatever causing the rain. No “it” makes the rain; rain just pours down and makes you wet. By analogy, the idea that a Creation needs a Creator seems utterly anthropomorphic.
We humans are not used to seeing things that just happen or become something, so we usually assign an agent, a human or maybe a supernatural agent, to explain such happenings. This is reflected in our language: in most languages, there surely is an “it” that causes the rain. Being always ready trying to find agents behind what has happened or become is our human nature. It’s advantageous, because it prompts us to investigate, to do research. But it can sometimes be a logical stumbling-block.
I don’t know, but I think that the idea of a pandeistic god might present Americans, with their weird religious hang-ups, with a reasonable alternative. Not having to deny
reality could be a tremendous source of relief for most people. So I very much support the pandeist idea. Logical problems – aren’t we always grappling with those?