The Difficulty with Demarcating Panentheism

Mullins, R. T.

doi:10.1007/s11841-015-0497-6

Cited by 48 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…God's wisdom is not identical to His power, but one will not find God's wisdom floating free from His power. 25 How does complex theism fare with respect to aseity and unity? Complex theists by and large recognize aseity and unity as conditions that the ultimate being needs to meet and seek to show that a complex divine being would meet these conditions.…”

Section: Complex Theism and Weak Aseitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for the Whole: Why Pantheism is on a Metaphysical Par with Complex Theism

Cohoe

2020

faith and philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pantheists are often accused of lacking a sufficient account of the unity of the cosmos and its supposed priority over its many parts. I argue that complex theists, those who think that God has ontologically distinct parts or attributes, face the same problems. Current proposals for the metaphysics of complex theism do not offer any greater unity or ontological independence than pantheism, since they are modeled on priority monism. I then discuss whether the formal distinction of John Duns Scotus offers a way forward for complex theists. I show that only those classical theists who affirm divine simplicity are better off with respect to aseity and unity than pantheists. Only proponents of divine simplicity can fairly claim to have found a fully independent ultimate being.

show abstract

Section: Complex Theism and Weak Aseitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Accounting for the Whole: Why Pantheism is on a Metaphysical Par with Complex Theism

Cohoe

2020

faith and philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 See Oord's comments in In Whom We Live and Move and Have our Being: Panentheistic Reflections on God's Presence in a Scientific World (Oord 2004). R.T. Mullins also addresses the problem of various definitions in »The Difficulty with Demarcating Panentheism« (Mullins 2016).…”

Section: God and The World: Panentheismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology

Oord¹,

Schwartz²

2020

Panentheism and Panpsychism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 There are intensive discussions about this issue. See, for instance, Göcke (2013) and Mullins (2016). 4 Brierley (2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

God’s omnipresence in the world: on possible meanings of ‘en’ in panentheism

Gasser

2018

Int J Philos Relig

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Panenetheism is the claim that God and the cosmos are intimately interrelated , with the cosmos being in God and God being in the cosmos. What does this exactly mean? The aim of this paper is to address this question by sheding light on four possible models of God-world-inter-relatedness. Being critical of those models, which understand maximal immanence in a literal, spatial sense, the paper argues in favor of a model, which cashes out immanence in terms of divine activity. God is, where God acts. Since God acts upon all of creation everywhere and anytime, God is omnipresent to it at all times. Thus, the proposal is to read the 'en' in 'panetheism' in an 'agential sense': God is in the cosmos by creating and sustaining it and the cosmos is in God by constantly being within the sphere of divine activity.

show abstract

The Difficulty with Demarcating Panentheism

Cited by 48 publications

References 35 publications

Accounting for the Whole: Why Pantheism is on a Metaphysical Par with Complex Theism

Accounting for the Whole: Why Pantheism is on a Metaphysical Par with Complex Theism

Panentheism and Panexperientialism for Open and Relational Theology

God’s omnipresence in the world: on possible meanings of ‘en’ in panentheism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About