I use the term "god" in this post, but you can replace that word with "x" if you like... if you want to post "there is no God" I prefer you create a new thread since I prefer to look at these concepts from the perspective that there is indeed "something" in "some" form...

I am aware this is only semantics, but for me it makes it easier to locate the right term... it does make communication easier. For many years I figured that pantheism was the "system" in place.

Pantheism is a doctrine which identifies God with the universe, or regards the universe as a manifestation of God. And that notion does somewhat still make sense, but it does seem too simple even though the most simple explanation is probably the correct one.

However recently I've become more interested in Pandeism. This concept holds that "the creator deity became the universe (pantheism) and ceased to exist as a separate and conscious entity (deism holding that God does not interfere with the universe after its creation). Pandeism is proposed to explain, as it relates to deism, why God would create a universe and then appear to abandon it, and as to pantheism, the origin and purpose of the universe" - source

The reason this concept is interesting is because it is basically what Rumi said:

Fold within fold, the Beloved [God] drowns in his own being. This world is drenched with that drowning.
This image is very striking and fit well with what I have seen and learned throughout my life, it is also a beautiful image I think. However the issue I have with Pandeism is the concept that God does not interfere... this does not fit with the world view and world experience I have. The concept of a passive Pantheistic God that is immersed in its own creation does not seem correct at all. Although there is no reason for God to jump in and stop every bad thing from happening... more on that further on... I just think God is active and engaged in a more subtle and clever manner... whilst at the same time fully immersed.

Panentheism on the other hand is "the belief that the divine pervades and interpenetrates every part of the universe and also extends beyond time and space. Unlike pantheism, which holds that the divine and the universe are identical, panentheism maintains an ontological distinction between the divine and the non-divine and the significance of both. In panentheism, God is viewed as the soul of the universe, the universal spirit present everywhere, which at the same time "transcends" all things created." - source

Essay: ‘Who’ is God and ‘What’ is God?: Comparing Theism, Deism, Pantheism, and Polytheism: A Closer Look

In above essay it says: "Pantheism fails to adequately handle the problem of evil. To pronounce evil as an illusion or as less than real is not only frustrating and hollow to those experiencing evil, but also philosophically inadequate. If evil is not real, then what is the origin of the illusion? Why has man experienced it for so long, and why does it seem so real? Despite the pantheist’s claims to the contrary, he, along with the rest of us, experiences pain, suffering, and eventually death."

Now first of all the answer to above quote could be Pandeism, because how can God intervene and stop evil if God has drowned "itself" in its own being/creation. I don't buy that. Also if indeed Panentheism is the model currently at play all around us, if God is in fact actively inside and outside everything that exists how can "it" allow evil?

When I have a dream and in the dream I suffer evil, not ever do I question myself: "why did my brain not jump in and stop such a bad dream?" That's stupid. A nightmare is equally valid as a non-nightmare. If God jumps in and stops every moment of my dream when things are not "fluffy bunny" I'll never be able to have a full nights rest. Such a God would be totally annoying. An asshole in fact.

Amongst psychonauts there is the concept of "the bad trip". This term is usually totally misunderstood by the mainstream or non-psychedelic users. This misunderstanding is self-inflicted, because the term "bad" "trip" does not really explain what it was. For instance if a person takes 5 dried grams of psilocybin and goes to Disney land you might have a "bad" trip, but I would rather called it a "stupid" trip. If a person instead takes 5 dried grams of psilocybin in the perfect "set" and "setting", and goes through a horrendous experience of deeply existential significance that is NOT a "bad" trip... that is a "challenging" trip... or even better "an initiation".

There are no bad trips, only "dumb behaviour like tripping on a roller coaster" or "challenging" experiences which you always gain more from than some rainbow surfing fluff trip.

What has all this got do do with anything?

Well, evil is a "challenging" experience.