Is pantheism a reasonable belief

We should not be looking in the dictionary. The definition is specifically defined for Christians and Muslims. Where worship is required. That is where I draw the line. You cannot worship God if God is everything. So the definition is too specific while contradicting itself with its own definition of pantheism. It also completely left out polytheism which is strange because they were once considered God's! So in short. The dictionary will not help us with this debate. We have to decide ourselves. While I can see you have some good points. I think you have to ignore many of my arguments to maintain your stance! I want to reiterate one idea because I truly want to know why it is not reasonable! God (in whatever form) is suppose to answer the great mystery of where existence came from. With Christianity they just say God willed it into existence. This does not satisfy the answer of where matter and energy came from. Answering that question with theism/deism leaves you with nothing as explanation just "God did it" So I proposed that if indeed a creator God existed and was all that existed before our universe, the matter and energy would have to of came from God. That is the only way to answer the question of where matter came from! that would mean that the only plausible way to believe in a creator is Pantheism! "equating God to the universe whilst denying God as understood by deists and theists makes you an atheist." That is not true! You would still believe in "God" just not the same God that Christians and Muslims worship. There is no worship because it would be "God worshipping himself"! I think you are being a little to rigid about pantheism being equal to atheism where in actuality it is closer to Deism. We both are satisfied with our answers despite zero evidence for either. That is why we are not atheist (technically you are atheist to the Christian God and Hindu God's) I actually have a theory that Christianity/ Muslim/ Mormon/ Jehovah witness are polytheistic. While reading the bible I notice a completely different God. His Character ranges from Jesus to most oppressive and despicable God in all of mythology IMHO! Anyways that was just for your entertainment, not to claim that I want to derail this debate, yet again lol "No one will be atheist if God was equated to the universe." I'm sorry, we are not on the same page about atheism. Atheism IS NOT ANYTHING! It is a reaction to theism. Like I said We are all atheists... to a specific God! True atheism is like "free will" or "Sin" It is ambiguous and it is seen out of context by anyone who says atheist (Free will,Sin, God, pantheism etc.!) That was the whole point of my debate was to clarify these concepts, not just throw them away because they do not match your presupposition! Which I believe is why you think it is convoluted! "there is no clearly stated purpose or will the universe has for us. The universe simply is and has no 'innate universal consciousness'." You had me until the end. Please clarify "innate universal consciousness." The way you used it does not make sense with pantheism! "We add an extra: God. I believe it is mistaken for you to simply pretend otherwise. " Notice how you complicate what does not need us to add anything! It was never necessary to even consider or imagine "God's existence" But here we live in a world where people who do not take the word of someone else over extraordinary claims are called atheist (derogatory) I'm taking the word "God" and "Atheist" back! They have been exploited and abused enough! That is my reason for pantheism.. it builds a bridge between this dangerous and pathetic gap! Our true goal should be unity. Pantheism offers that. Personal belief is important. But how far should we let people go (suicide bombings, westborough Baptist) I'm sorry I went on a tangent but I think it is of extreme importance to know why I defend pantheism. "To the extent that I believe our consciousness derives from God, and we exist in God; I believe God is personal." We see eye to eye my friend. Except maybe the personal God part. I am not saying that you are wrong to believe in a personal God. It still is your desire and preference. It does not come from reason. If so you would have seen that it could be either way. I never respect someone for following blindly by telling themselves that they know some "invisible truth" that comes from the same organ that gave us The Bible, The Bogeyman and Lord of the Rings. All I am saying is that If someone admits they might be wrong they are far more receptive to truth! I will admit I could even be wrong about Odin and Zeus. Like I said.. who knows! "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." Your God is innocuous. It does not bully minorities or stifle science! That is why I have no beef with your God! Again it seems like I share more of your views on "God" than atheists do! In fact for most of that sentence you were describing a pantheism God. I think we should clear something up. "God is everything" does not limit itself to nature or even existence. Your personal/impersonal/transpersonal God perfectly illustrates the true definition of pantheism. God would not only be existence but a timeless/spaceless all powerful being. That is the only explanation for how this came into existence while acknowledging a creator! Like I said "God did it" leaves me with the same empty whole that I had when I asked the question! So if we entertain the idea of God existing at all. It would not make sense that he was limited through separation from his creation! It would only make sense that existence had to come FROM GOD.. not BY GOD! Sorry for the bold. I feel as though these are arguments you have not tackled! * 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). Sounds like Gospel to me... while preaching to a minister! Sounds like we should both start up the same church lol. Now we will only be arguing what to call the religion (Deism or Pantheism) Basically I'm saying that you described Pantheism! "How then can one explain consciousness if not by presuming God made it so ?" This is why I am not atheist. I see what you are saying but it still fits perfectly within pantheism. "To say, somehow certain matter can create it involves the same special pleading and 'matter-of-the-gaps' argument theists/deists" I agree that is why I believe that God fits the pattern, if you notice the lack of knowledge from science on the matter of consciousness. God does fill that gap. That does not mean we couldn't both be wrong (off by a mile)! But it is legitimate considering it does its purpose, which is to put your mind at ease! "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" I appreciate you educating me about your beliefs. They are very interesting and akin to my own beliefs. It helped for me to understand where you are coming from. I'm having fun here. Hope I do not sound crass. I do get a little excited when debating lol! BTW if pantheism does not represent the God that existed before the universe while being existence itself.. then what word am I looking for? The definitions for pantheism in the dictionary seems to fall short of the God I am trying to describe!