Is pantheism a reasonable belief

'You cannot worship God if God is everything.' Why not ? Nature is everything and people worship it. Everything I am and everything I wish to be is resides in myself (body and mind) and I'm free to acknowledge both. Extending this further, you can understand why I am curious as to what makes you think God can't be worshipped. In any case, I think this makes the atheist's case poignant and worth noting. We are talking about what we can or can't do with God. I am more like, 'what if either way it doesn't matter.' "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 have come from God." There must always be a point where one can't explain things. Take for instance the Big Bang, what happened before it is invalid because time starts with it. Consider the nature of gravity or magnets; though we know in detail how they work, physicists are at a loss to explain the cause of their nature. They stop at that_describing them. But I (and theists I believe) go further and stop at God who caused things to be that way. Just as I said before, 'how' doesn't apply because that presumes a physical world (the same way before the BB presumes time), so we presume God 'made' it that way. For some reason, folks want an explanation for 'how' God made the world, typically because they don't want God as an explanation for 'how' the world was made. As for matter and energy coming from God I think we are quite similar to theists: they too believe matter came from God 'in the beginning'. But I'm guessing that you are thinking along the lines of matter being eternal (like God). That won't be a bad idea and I toyed with the idea of God always existing as mind and matter. But I no longer prescribe to that, though it's possible. I believe in 'mind over matter'. "There is no worship because it would be "God worshipping himself"!" What's weird in that ? Have you never commended yourself, scorned yourself or disbelieved in yourself. And even tho' I'm quite certain you don't, schizophrenics, narcissists and past kings or emperors more or less worshipped themselves and expected the same of others. In any case, atheists don't worship any God or anything so, a part of God doesn't worship it. "Please clarify "innate universal consciousness."" Just another way of saying matter has the ability to poof up consciousness given the right conditions. To paraphrase it, the ingredients for effecting subjective conscious experience presides in natural laws. Brian Cox seems to believe something of that sort. Now to deal with three other issues. Your complaint of your points (you think) I haven't suffuciently addressed_I have; my thoughts on atheism and my thoughts on organized religion. "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!" Funny enough ! By presuming a God who died for humanity Christians apparently make God part of creation. I think Christianity allows one to take both points of view. One can emphasize God's holiness and other aspects of His nature and so make it seem almost impersonal; so much so without a variety of rites you cannot hope to reach Him. 'No man shall see God' the Bible says in Exo 33:20 and in verse 11 of the same chapter Moses reportedly spoke to God face to face. In any case, I think religions (to a greater or lesser extent) believe creation to be FROM God. This couldn't be more obvious in Daoism (or Taoism) and Hinduism. You have repeatedly mentioned my beliefs are subject to yours. But that has since TO SOME EXTENT been agreed. I had already stated that if you equate the universe to God then everyone is a pantheist. But that is too vague. While everybody has their nuances, the terms 'deism', 'theism' or 'atheism' captures their stance on God. It helps us know more specifically what their thoughts are on God. In fact, when we have more in common than with atheists you prove my point. Besides, it appears you haven't read up on panentheism or panendeism which makes God all-inclusive of Nature but still maintaining its unique qualities as the Creator. Just because someone focuses on the part of God as the Creator doesn't mean God as Nature itself is ruled out. In fact, I comprehensively dealt with this in my first response. As for taking back pantheism from atheism, or lumping deism and theism with pantheism, it's unnecessary. I would find it funny, for instance, if a philosopher today asserted he wants to redefine all the sciences as natural philosophy: and insists that social science and physical science departments be placed under philosophy. Historically, he has the right, since the sciences, and even religions, developed from classical and ancient philosophy (which wove science into religious enlightenment, only medicine was quite seperate). The Elusinerean mysteries, certain Hindu sects and more obviously the Jesuits are good examples of this fact. "Atheism is not ANYTHING!" Then how come we are talking about it ? If it's not anything we shouldn't even have the name. Same for skepticism. If you said space expands and I reacted by denying it; by your logic, I would have the right to say 'I am not saying anything, I am just reacting,' if you told me to defend my denial. Atheism is something. A lack of belief in God/gods and conversely a belief that God/gods don't exist. A lack of belief on a subject is either a result of ignorance (due to unconsciousness, inadequate mental capacity or absence of information) or a prior belief which prevents one from believing the subject at hand. Because of a commitment to naturalism, atheists dislike a wording their stance on God as a belief. I find that funny. As for organized religion, I don't have problems with it save for when it conflicts with my preferences. Even then, within certain limits I can allow for religious indulgence. For example, I dislike being told to pray over an illness. Doctors will suffice. But I may indulge a religious person's need to pray for me, or even pray along. Apparently, in an emergency situation I won't even have the time for such. Religion, like philosophy, no matter how weird are part of the tapestry of human experience. People like stories (even some atheists may love 'The Passion Of The Christ'), people like rites (we do birthdays and burials), people hold things dear (the American constitution, money, civil rights history, the scientific method) in a way that parallels the religious notion of sacred. When I find a person disgusted with organized religion believing deeply that aliens will be found (a story), marking specific events or celebrating people with rites, or doing all they can to make their stance known (apparently something dear), I chuckle within at the irony. Whoever came up with the word 'religion' was smart, it comes from 'religare' (Latin for 'to bind') and all humans are MORE OR LESS bound to beliefs some they hold dear. Too often people antagonize organize religion and forget to see the link when antagonizing other organized systems (red-tape in governance, Soviet communism etc). They are too focused on specific beliefs (eg killing gays in Islam, hell, a jealous God, pagan human sacrifices) to see the essential nature of religion as binding someone to a belief. By the way, a part of me likes deism because it is clearly not as organized as 'New atheists' are: though that's it's weakness since people seem ignorant about how it has evolved from classical deism. Maybe that's why I say I'm evolving: I see all religions, all philosophies as what my Dad called 'a person's way of understanding God [or Nature]'. To be human is to be religious. In conclusion, what more can I say than what I've been saying. Deism, Theism and Atheism makes things clear. If you say you aren't atheist and believe in a transpersonal God or an impersonal God you are deist. If you don't believe in a conscious God or think the cause of the universe is a force you are an atheist. Many atheists will be content to find a natural cause for the unuverse in a force. Maybe that's why the multuverse theory is viewed favorably by some. If you believe in a perosnal God or engage in one of 'the Big Three', you are a theist. Please check out panendeism and panentheism. But I think we should put pantheism in the same class as agnosticism. It hints at but doesn't SPECIFY what your beliefs in God are.