` : Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to work? Pardon me, but I don't think it is. Suppose a man had one leg longer than the other. It happens all the time. One leg is ``out of proportion`` to the other. And suppose he could have his gait fixed by wearing a brace or a lift on one side. But suppose the doctor were to say, ``no, this leg is out of proportion, we are going to cut the whole thing off and call one-leggedness a neutral state of affairs.`` ``Can't you just take the foot, doc, so they're of the same length?`` ``No, no, going to cut it all off, in the name of neutrality.`` So Pandeism is a religious viewpoint. It's been around for a few hundreds of years, but has never really attracted a great deal in the way of support. And why not? The Lord has told us, Mark 13:22, there will be false messiahs and false prophets. 2 Peter 2:1, that there will be false teachers among you, they will cleverly introduce false heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them. From a Christian perspective, Pandeism is such a clever heresy. It has to date largely failed as a viewpoint. Nevertheless it has drawn some well-pointed criticism, which has by coincidence or design come from those within Christian apologetics. Some of this was added to the article but then summarily removed. According to  ``Sorry, but this article is about a broad conception of God that does not warrant a 'criticism' section. It is clearly not a Christian conception of God, nor is it a Muslim conception and so on.`` Is that so? I would be surprised if it were a rule that broad conceptions are immune to criticism, or that Christian criticism must be excluded if it is not a criticism of a Christian conception of God. I would be equally surprised if it were a rule that any amount of criticism were prohibited from appearing in the article because any amount of criticism would be disproportionate to what good can be said of the subject. Suppose, then, we were to ask, not, ``is criticism disproportionate`` but rather, ``how much criticism is proportionate?`` and then add or return to this article whatever amount of criticism is indeed ``proportionate`` to this article. I would submit that the amount that is appropriate is ``all of it`` but I am reasonable and willing to bend so far as to say something less than all, but not ``nothing.`` or am I not being reasonable in this? Come, and let us reason together.   `