Is pantheism a reasonable belief

Let's clarify terms once more: Pantheist: A doctrine identifying the Deity with the universe and its phenomena. Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Deist: The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. Theist: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world. God: A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. (culled from The Free Dictionary) As you can see from the definitions (never mind its nuanced flaws), equating God to the universe whilst denying God as understood by deists and theists makes you an atheist. No one will be atheist if God was equated to the universe. If someone however, built a system of rites and ascribed will and personality to the universe there will be atheists: there is no clearly stated purpose or will the universe has for us. The universe simply is and has no 'innate universal consciousness'. But God as understood by deists and atheists is distinct from the universe and I have repeated this point. Hence, saying everyone is a pantheist since they all believe your God (ie the universe) is mistaken. We add an extra: God. I believe it is mistaken for you to simply pretend otherwise. Or say think deism/theism mistaken to think so. Many people tend to be confused about terms. I have seen a person who believes in 'Infinite Intelligence' (as deists like Napoleon Hill called God) call himself an atheist. I have seen people who believe anything that caused the Big Bang is God (and doubt in deism) call themselves deist_these should be atheists. I have seen so-called theists who believe God doesn't interfere with human existence and express skepticism about their faith (usually Christianity): and yet they are effectively deist. It is true you have certain unique beliefs of your own but I still think atheist describes you well. I have already mentioned nuances of my own. For example, to the extent that I believe our consciousness derives from God, and we exist in God; I believe God is personal. However, I differentiate myself from theists since I no longer share a belief in sacred books or a religion as a means to truly knowing God. I also believe in an impersonal God: and a transpersonal God. In fact, I think in some ways my beliefs on God are unique and at this stage of my life, evolving. Now to why deism (my own version) is reasonable. I am not going to argue for all deists: in fact, I'm very sure I will strongly disagree with deists on some things. I am arguing for MY beliefs. Now to them: * I believe in God that is a non-contingent Creator of our reality. * I believe it is perfect, infinite and as such omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. * I believe God is the entirety of our universe. * I believe in a transpersonal God (who could be personal or not but more crucially can't be personal the way humans are. For one it needs no body to have a persona). My deism has basis in a belief in intelligent design, the presence of consciousness (as humans experience it) and my understanding of causality. Subjective conscious experience is depends on the brain but is not explained by it. The fact that certain sodium ions streaming in someone's neocortex may code for a line of thought or someone's awareness is unexplained since they lack consciousness. In a universe without a God (who is conscious) there shouldn't be consciousness; since matter lacks it. How then can one explain consciousness if not by presuming God made it so ? To say, like Dennet, that subjective conscious thought is illusory is unacceptable since it is well-known. To say, we don't have one is equally unacceptable; we have one. To say, somehow certain matter can create it involves the same special pleading and 'matter-of-the-gaps' argument theists/deists are accused of. In other words, you believe certain matter just poofed consciousness. We'll have to wait for huge till genetic engineering and computer science etc come of age to test the possibility of building humans bottom-up with consciousness. But I doubt that will happen. Materialists predicted computer will have consciousness when they reached the level of computing power we now have and yet nothing. More importantly, the nature of consciousness is misunderstood. It is, like space, immaterial and can't be accounted for by matter itself. It is therefore apropos to presume a God from the fact of conscious experience. If you want to pursue deism further I suggest you open a thread (topic) on the forum. Or start a debate on that. Doing that here will derail this debate. Your turn, Finalfan.