Is pantheism a reasonable belief

Unfortunately, I have to tread on and show your pantheism is unreasonable. It's true that one can't enter into a debate on pantheism (generally defined) without agreeing with it. But pantheism strength is it's area of weakness, as things often are. And what's that weakness: Pantheism is too vague and can be easily taken to mean theism, deism or atheism. That's why I said it is a confused position. That's why I insised like other isms it is best associated with theism, deism or atheism which typically make things clear as to what one's take on God is. I've already made some points on other 'isms' and I shall focus on one I mentioned: monism. Monism can be mistaken for pantheism_because like pantheism_it involves unifying all reality. But the difference is monism seeks to EXPLAIN all reality in terms of a single, underlying thing; whilst pantheism NAMES all reality as God (no explanation is needed). Bertrand Russel was a monist but since he was monist his monism which he called 'neutral monism' where the cause of all reality is neither physical nor mental. I am a deist so I disagree. My monism_like Spinoza's_can be called a 'dual-aspect monism' whereby all reality is explained as an expression of one of an infinite God (which is 'Thought' or 'Matter'). Of course, on some finer points I differ with Spinoza. My short expatiation of monism is to draw parallels with pantheism and show that both are too generic to help identify one's belief in God which pantheism has more to do with than monism. Pantheism is equating God to the universe. This definition is agreeable to us but we differ on finer points of how it applies to beliefs in God. Note that, some will dislike pantheism for equating God to the universe given qualities of God that distinguish him from the universe. For one, he is eternal and the universe (or multiverse) isn't; he created the universe; as such, He doesn't need the universe to exist which shows His trancendence. No one doubts the universe exists but mixing it with God muddles things. For analogy, people differentiate between their subject conscious self and their bodies even though the two are routinely referred to as the person. So Mandela, is his body, but if he dies what Mandela are we referring to, his corpse, or his self as we knew it. We can equate Mandela to his body and say he has no conscious self but clearly dead as he is we refer to Mandela and his conscious qualities as if still they exist. In that sense, such 'self' (brain state or soul if you will) transcend his body even though they are similar. We may equate Peter Hitchens with his body but we never changed the name though his body changed over time. From atheist to Christian, whilst pretty much the same physically whilst switching sides yet his self (or qualia). In these examples, a pantheist will be the equivalent of a materialist who denies subjective, conscious experience and says all the persons body is the person. An idealist would agree but include the self too. I believe all of Nature can be equated to God but God takes precedence as the Creator; there are infinitely more Natures (or multiverses) to be experienced in Him. The muddling of God with Nature mistakes a part for the whole. "God is everything does not lend itself to assume a creator that is separate from creation. I would even Go as far to say that if there was something that exists as immaterial, timeless, and all powerful.. you could ask where the "material came from to begin creation. Would it not make sense that all of existence came from God itself and not springing forth as a separate entity! My main point is that many people are pantheist without realizing it.. they just happen to be reading instructions that negate each other while cherry picking their preference." You too have your preference. Everyone has a preference but your talk of existence springing from God itself_and not as a seperate entity_is why I replied this. What of both ? Think about it. Einstein challenged physicists to look at light as BOTH a wave and particle. de Broglie further theorized known particles like electrons showed wave properties and this was confirmed in experiments. Not minding the conflict, I see the two as unified. God can make existence in Nature from itself and it remains seperate from Nature. We see this, in a sense in pregnant mums. Their kids are in them (and in a sense extra cells in their bodies) but it's different: their kids are seperate entities in an amniotic sac and this seperation becomes more obvious as the child grows into an independent adult. Spinoza said 'God or Nature' but I would add 'God or Space'; after all, all things must exist in a spatial context. I am comfortable not knowing HOW God made the materials. 'How' presumes a physical context and God precedes that. "So I will say that Pantheism may not be a reasonable belief.. but only in the same light as deism/theism or even atheism! I'm willing to admit one thing and that is to say when discussing the beginning of existence.. I DONT KNOW. Can you admit to the same?" I'll admit I don't know . . . . details. But I do know (with very little doubt) God was involved. Pantheism isn't unreasonable like deism or atheism. It intersects with them and is unreasonable in part because it encapsulates deistic, theistic and atheistic belief which start with acknowledging Nature. If you want to add God, panetheism or panendeism are better options. "Your conclusion is a revolving door of reason's for both sides!" No. My LIST is a revolving door of reason which ENDS with the clarification that pantheism best be equated with atheism. Panentheism or panendeism better capture theist and deist means of equating reality with God wherein God can be both all reality and still maintain 'His' transcendence. Your turn, Finalfan.