PANENMONISM and COSMOLOGY

work in progress:

Panenmonism is a word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all (many), “en”, meaning in, and “monism”, meaning one (unity); All or Many in One or Unity.¹

 

Panenmonism express not one view but four possible main views of Reality; All in One, Many in One, Many in Unity or All in Unity.  Consider the relationship of the All or Many to the One or Unity as to which mainly depends on the other for its existence. Let’s say that whatever is dependent for its existence on something else to a high degree is a contingent reality (All or Unity) and whatever is the source of existence for something else to a high degree is a necessary reality (One or Many).  By so doing, if we view Reality as the All in One the All is contingent and the One necessarily exist.  If Reality is viewed as the Many in One the Many and the One necessarily exist and their relationship is a contingent reality. If Reality is viewed as the Many in Unity the Many necessarily exist and the Unity is contingent. And lastly if Reality is viewed as the All in Unity the All and Unity is contingent and their relationship is a necessary reality.

What does all this have to do with cosmology? A prime question of cosmology is what is the beginning or the source of the cosmos? The leading theory in Science is the Big Bang [expanding singularity], the leading theory in Theism is Creatio Ex Nihilo [create out of nothing] by god and the leading theory in Transtheism is Creatio Ex Materia [create out of something].

Notes: 
1. I first thought of this word when I was reading Charles Hartshorne, Creative Synthesis and Philosophic Method; Chapter 8. And when reading Justus Buchler, Philosophical Writings of Peirce; Chapter 23. I had a clearer understanding of its meaning.

Ontology evidence for Panenmonism:
Will be presented in the form of a discussion between Panenmonism or P and Theists or T. 

A derivation of Anselm argument: 

T: Theists have said in their hearts that there is nothing greater than God. Greater in the context of this discussion means the ultimate source and most real of all realities. 

P: To which I reply, the reality that Panenmonism refers to is The Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God.  Can God conceive of a reality greater than God and in doing so the Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God? 

T: Theists say that God can accomplish any possibilities or impossibility. 

P: I will take this as an affirmative answer; and so the greater Reality then must not be God, for if that reality is God then that reality is not greater than God. The greater Reality must be a reality other than God to be a reality greater than God. 

T: To which theists may reply God can conceive of a Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God but does not exist. 

P: And I would retort if God can conceive it, then I grant that God has done the possible or the impossible by conceiving and understanding that greater Reality. 

T: But how do you prove or demonstrate the existence of that Reality?

P: For theist, us, God and all others there is a distinction between understanding a thing as a concept and understand a thing as existing. For example, a God preparer’s in his mind what he will create and has that conception in his understanding, but he understands that he has not created it, so it is not yet in existence, like wise with us all. So then God and us all can be convinced that the Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God is in our understanding. Because God and we all understand the phrase, so that what is understood is in God’s and everyone understands.

T: Granted, God and everyone understand the phrase conceptually and it has been pointed out that God can conceive of a Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God but does not exist.  What is your proof or demonstration of its existence?

P: My demonstration or evidence for the Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God. Is that the Reality is necessarily not just in God and our conceptual understanding, because if it is only in God and our conceptual understanding it is less than an exist reality and by it becoming an existent thing it would be more than its conceptual reality. So if the Reality that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God is only in God and our conceptual understanding. There would be something greater than it through conception or existence and this is necessarily impossible by its Reality. That said, the Reality necessarily is that than which no greater can be conceived, beyond God and it is both in the conceptual understanding and is existent Reality.

T: I think that most if not all theist would not agree with your clam that Anselm committed the kind of error you are referring to. What reasons do you have for your clam that what Anselm was describing is something beyond God?

P: I will address the first problem in this manner, Anselm committed an error. It is I believe an error that many theists commit when trying to prove the existence or the supreme nature of their god(s).  Theism and Atheism suffer from the same error; it is the error of applying an improper reality to Deity or the fallacy of misplaced Deity. Examples: Theists want to place God or gods in the category of all things that are existent and Atheists want to place God or gods in the category of all things that are non-existent. It is impossible to do either with the same certainty of the things already in those categories, ergo to place God or gods in either of those two categories is the fallacy of misplaced Deity. However it would not be a fallacy to place God or gods in the category of all things that are possible because it can be done with the same basic certainty as the things already in that category. But it would be a fallacy to place God or gods in the category of all things that are impossible, so long as it cannot be done with the same certainty of the things already in this category.

But we are not talking about whether or not God exist because that was assumed by Anselm and he only wanted to prove the necessity of that existence. But what type of reality properly is God’s? The first way Anselm commit the fallacy of misplaced Deity is to believe that God is a being that than which no greater can be conceived, what Anselm was describing is something beyond God but Anselm call it God. The second way Anselm commit this error is to make the clam that God cannot be thought of as non-existent, Anselm misplaced deity by ascribing to God something that does not describe God’s reality. 

T: I think that most if not all theist would not agree with your clam that Anselm committed the fallacy of misplaced Deity. What reasons do you have for your clam that what Anselm was describing something beyond God?

P: Would you agree for this part of the discussion that God exists and has the ability to conceive of things?

T: Most certainly Theists would agree that God exists and can conceive of things!

P: Would you agree that the ability to conceive things depends on a being first existing or a being must exist before conceptions can occur?

T: That sounds reasonable either way, proceed.

P:  Would you also agree that there are things that exist that do not have the ability to conceive things and there are things (beings) that have the ability to conceive things. Existence is a greater reality because it is the source for conception to occur, either potentially or actually?  

T: We can agree that existence is a greater reality than the reality of conceptions by beings, for the reasons you have stated. This has already been stated in the evidence given for the Reality you propose that Panenmonism refer to, it seem you are merely covering the same ground. Is there a new point to this line of reasoning?

P: The new point is this, existence like conception is an occurrence that depends on and comes from a greater source reality. We all know that things come into existence and things go out of existence in our reality and that existent being also have the ability to cause, sustain or destroy existing things to a limited degree, just like conception, existence is an ability. The ultimate source of existence (and non-existence) is the most real of all realities and that than which no greater can be conceived. 

T: What you have said seems true enough, but how does this support your claim that Anselm committed the error of misplaced Deity, after all God could be the ultimate source of existence (and non-existence) and is the most real of all realities and that than which no greater can be conceived.

.