Pandeism Fish

So what, exactly, is a Pandeism Fish? I've received that question a fair share of times, one for which I surely ought to answer. And so here, by way of a roundabout essay is the explanation behind the Pandeism Fish....

Symbology:

Symbology is important to any school of thought as it provides an abbreviated way to convey affiliation, as well as in some instances to communicate a shorthand glimpse of the doctrine itself.

One such symbol is the fish. Now this might bring to mind a particular belief system in these particular times, but in fact the use of a sparse, fish-reminiscent pair of curved lines, just touching at one end and surpassing an intersection at the other, dates back over three-thousand years, pre-originating even the assignment of Pisces to the Zodiac.

The Christian adoption of the fish-as-symbol, the icthys, may raise an eyebrow. There was already, after all, the cross. And, though miracles or parables involving fish come as readily in the Bible as in the formative texts of, for example, Buddhism or Hinduism, the fish is not shown in any of these traditions to be a particularly venerated class of creature. And yet.... well, there is something about that shape which makes it especially appropriate as a symbol for Pandeism -- and if the pandeistic model is true, this would even go so far as to explain why members of theistic faiths (including, yes, Christianity) have subconsciously gravitated to a symbol greatly explicatory of Pandeism!!

The Pandeistic Model:

Consider, first, the pandeistic model; the Creator becomes the Creation; in the beginning (before our physical Universe exists, there is one entity, of substantial (but abstract) intellect, and having substantial capacity to control its own unformed energy. It is not infinite, but neither is it necessarily bounded -- one might describe it as "open-ended" in its creative capacity. This entity, for purposes of acquiring certain knowledge incapable of being generated for its current form, transforms itself, compresses all that it is into a singularity and then bursts forth into a new form, an unconscious will supporting the continued existence of a physical Universe, guided by laws of physics set forth in that very moment of Creation, with a grand unknown outcome but with governing dynamics designed to bring about complexity, culminating in the products of self-accelerating intelligent life (which, in turn, is capable of discovering those governing dynamics, those laws of physics and mathematics, and using them to build mightily upon the capacities delivered to it by nature)....

Anyone who has seen the map of the cosmic background radiation will note the rather oval shape assigned to it by the instruments reading it (though this oval is the product of an illusion, the true shape of the Universe likely being more spherical). Another sort of "oval" can be generated by envisioning our Universe is bursting forth from a singularity, and then experiencing a long period of expansion (perhaps hundreds of billions of years), reaching an apogee of sorts, a point of maximum expansion, from which it draws back in much the same way, returning to a point of singularity. Such expansion and contraction need not even occur in the three physical dimensions common to our observation, but may occur at higher dimensions, possessed of a curvature which exceeds our present observational capacity.

The Pandeism Fish:

And so, if we combine these ideas -- the pre-Universe Creator condensing and collapsing itself into a singularity, envisioned as an open-ended triangle pointing towards the moment of Creation; leading into the oval of our Universe as it is, or as it presents itself to us physically, and as it may operate on a larger cosmological sense, we find ourselves presented with a not unfamiliar shape:

______________________________________________________________
|MMMMMMMMWMMMWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM|
|MMMMMMMMMWMMWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM|
|MMMMMMMMMMWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMW*****^O""'`o^****MMMMMMMMMMMMMM|
 ..MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX*** ** *0* * ** * **_****XMMMMMMMMM|
 `..MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMZ* **~**o** ** *`*_**~*** ****~***MMMMM|
` .. @MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX** **--*-* **** - -* **.... ` ` * **~*MM|
 )@ ~@ .w@MMMMMMP*****o* ** ** ** ** * *** * * * * ** ** ***MM|
 `~@ @ ..@`..@%F#.r{}*** *** *~**. .-. .* *** *// *** * ***..#)
` ) ` ) ` ) }+{ ` ` ` ` *` ` ` ` * ` ` ` ` ` ` * *` ` ` * `  }+ ???
 ,@ /@./-@/@#H%..**o-*** * *~*** *.. .. ....** **** *~** * */#)
 / ,? @ @MMMMMMMb** * *O* * * * o**~* *'** *** ** *O* ** * **M|
 @ ~,/@MMMMMMMMMMMM* * ** ** ** ** *o** _** *** ** * * ***MMMM|
, /MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM*o***~// * * * *o * * ** ** * *XMMMMMM|
 /MMMMMMMMWMMMWMMMMMMMMMMX** ** * * * ** * *0 * * *ZMMMMMMMMMM|
|MMMMMWMMMMMMMWMMMMMWMMMMMMMMX* *** * * **// * *MMMMMMMMMMMMMM|
|MMMMMMMMMMMWWWWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMX&-x_,-/-XMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM|
|MMMMMMWWWWWWWWWWWWMMMMWWMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM|
|WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW|

Now here's where things get really interesting, conceptually. Recall that pandeism accounts for all theistic phenomena -- from all faiths -- as encounters between the limited human mind and the unconscious experience of our Creator underlying the continued sustenance of our Universe. All revelations received and miracles observed can be so explained, without resort to incongruent beliefs in things such as "evil spirits" being permitted to provide "false" revelations to some, while others are permitted to receive "true" revelations. And this accounts, as well, for the human predilection to grasp blindly towards the underlying metaphysical explanation, dressed up though it may become by human biases, fears and aspirations.

Synthesis:

Consider, again, that this fish-shaped device symbolises no petty miracle or mediocre allegory, but instead models an explanation for all observed reality, an explanation which, should the pandeistic model be true, would resonate in the unconscious mind underlying our continued existence, and through that channel into the subconscious mind of humanity. And so it could be said that the adoption by many faiths of the vague outline of a fish -- of the pandeism fish -- indicates this true underlying nature of our Universe, one which accounts for all the graspings of those very faiths!!

A fly in the Ontological Ointment

The Ontological Argument proposes that if God is "that than which no greater can be conceived," then God must exist, because something that does exist is greater than something that does not, and so existence is necessarily bundled up into "that than which no greater can be conceived." Though Immanuel Kant's refutation, denying existence itself as a quality, goes to the heart of such a claim of existence being tautological, he is applying that, I think, to a purported conception which itself never exists in the first place. For, in fact, it is impossible for something approaching "perfection" in any capacity to actually be conceived.

The Ontological Argument requires us to first conceive something which is perfect, as a step towards requiring the actualisation of this perfection on the basis of existence itself being a higher state of perfection. A simple, devastating blow to this argument can be laid down by a confrontation with the liberties which the first requirement takes with the very nature of conception itself. As the first step in the argument is to define "God" as "that than which no greater can be conceived," we must consider: what exactly is it which we are capable of conceiving?

Picture, for a moment, an infinitely long piece of string. Try and get that image in your head. Well, really, whatever you've thought of, it is a certainty that you are not actually picturing something "infinite" -- perhaps you imagine infinity by picturing that string trailing off into the distance, to the point where we can no longer see it at all, but (we tell ourselves) it continues on forever outside of our view, or ability to picture. Or, you may picture a string running straight across a horizon, your image pulling back from it as your field of view expands by orders of magnitude.

We do these things in place of undertaking the impossible task of picturing such a string as it actually goes on, forever. To contemplate an actualisable infinite string, we would need to spend an infinite amount of time on the thought itself. And so it is this way, in which we imagine perfection, by modeling an actually imperfect mental construct that comes as close to perfection as our minds are able to contemplate, but does not in fact achieve the conceptual step prerequisite to actualisation. Seeking a more abstract conception, consider the greatest or most perfect piece of music composable. The phrase "the greatest piece of music composable" is not, itself, utterly devoid of meaning, as we can imagine that such a thing might be -- but there is no means to conceptualise the actual tune for which that description would be universally true. We can not hum a few bars and know our conceptualisation to be objectively correct.

Simply put, perfection -- being "the greatest conceivable" in any field -- is a form of infinity, a projection that is infinite along the lines of perfectness. And, since we really can't truly conceive of an infinite, no conception actually exists to require this illusory conceived infinite be perfected along some tautological additional dimension of actual existence. Not only can we not conceive the infinite, we are, in fact (indeed, by definition) unable to truly fully conceive of things that are merely incomprehensibly large. For example, we can look at a book's worth of pictures of Jupiter and descriptions of its characteristics, but we can no more construct a fully accurate mental image of the sheer vastness of that planet than we can circumnavigate it by crawling naked for the length of the Jovian equator.

Reflecting upon the limitations of the human mind to do anything more than model limited versions of abstract infinites, we can see the impossibility of actually conceiving "that than which no greater can be conceived." Where David Hume, in the previous node, says the ideal can exist only in the human mind, he has already gone a step too far, for it is only model of the ideal that can therein persist. And, anticipating one remaining possible challenge, if we remove this humanistic consideration, then the Ontological Argument itself ceases to exist, for it is only a construct of human thought. As an absolute premise, the argument requires the human reader giving it consideration to first conceive the perfection suggested -- to suppose that God must exist because God would be able to conceive God is to beg the question.

Noah's Snowball

If the rains described in the story of Noah's Ark had ever really happened, modern meteorology informs us that the result would have been plunging the Earth into a deep freeze -- a Snowball Earth -- from which it would not have recovered for millions of years.... here is the evidence....



"Noah's Snowball -- a PanDeism Channel Presentation"

Conscious energy? Pandeism says yes!!

Can energy unbounded by a "physical form" be conscious? Pandeism says yes!! The physicality of our brains, after all, is merely the illusion of energy bound up and appearing to be solid stuff.

Pandeism explains the stars and galaxies

Pandeism explains the size of the Universe, and the vast number of stars and galaxies....

Pandeism -- the introductory vid

For those who have missed it, this is an overview of the theological theory of pandeism, a combination of pantheism and deism concluding that the Deus (i.e. God) became the Universe in order to experience it.

Confirmatory power of the pandeistic model

There is great misunderstanding about what exactly the pandeistic model is, or why it offers so great a confirmatory power. Simply put, the pandeistic model determines which explanations can possibly account for observed physical and metaphysical phenomena, and then boils them down to the one explanation that requires the fewest assumptions in fulfilling this explanatory need. If a religion were to confirmably present an observation that could not be accounted for by the pandeistic model, but instead required adoption of an additional assumption, logic would indeed demand that this assumption be adopted; but every single observation must be weighed to determine whether it demands the adoption of additional assumptions, and every assumption must be weighed for determination of whether any simpler model accounts for the things it would assume....

Atheists label pandeism as theism, and theists label it as atheism; and yet, pandeism fully accounts for the things atheists believe as well; indeed, it would be folly to exclude atheism from the pandeistic model of examination, for atheism does not actually explain anything so much as assert that the explanation, though unknown, is not or can not be theological -- this is what divides the starkness of atheism from the explanatory power of the pandeistic model.