Is pantheism a reasonable belief

Most religions will say the same thing: God is everything.. you find it in parts of the Hebrew bible! But they seem to not understand what that means! 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. Ephesians 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. The Koran teaches of 99 different "identities" for Allah.. a couple considering him to be boundless and indivisible from creation! It is the Torah that refuses to acknowledge the purest form of omnipresence which would mean that God isn't just everywhere but takes it further to say that God IS everywhere! (everyone and everything) I know that is an artistic liberty but it illustrated my point as to say that they are reading a book that tells you about a self negating deity who does not even give you a clear image of what "he" may be. I will say that it is more than likely out of preference that you are deist. You prefer the idea.. but that does not make it true! Your God is commonly know as the final God of the Gaps. All of the rest of the Gods that have been in the same position have been left in the fiction section. The last "gap" is the beginning and the end. Now the end is less inconceivable as the beginning (considering we all could be awaiting the same nothingness that, as individual entities, had "experienced" before we were born).. other than that, saying "I don't know" is also a very honest and observably testable assumption. The same thing goes for the beginning. We know the "God of Rain" humans invented to explain why it rains.. well we hitch slapped him into nonexistent as fast as you can say Cumulus Cloud! Now I'm not saying your "God of the beginning" is not up for debate.. I'm just seeing a pattern. I like to play the "Even if" game. Like: Even if there is a creator.. more than likely it is not what you were hoping for. Especially as a deist you must call it a guess and either way you look at it.. a creator could still exist AS EVERYTHING! Which would make you a pantheist.. if you had said notions! I will tell you something I believe (furthering our discussion about preconceived notions) Clinging to old Gods can be innocuous and I have no issues there. But some have a hard time letting go.... to the point of holding onto a rotten carcass of a dead child that the mother could not bring herself to bury.. the problem is that eventually the carcass will start to stink and contaminate the water. To me that is what EVERY debate on the subject of God or religion has been struggling to evolve through. We see these people holding onto irrational beliefs and literally die (or kill) for their beliefs. How many of you have had a parent tell you that they would let a person kill their children if the alternative meant denouncing their faith? Always seems strange to me, especially in a system you can have redemption at any time! How many wars and conflicts are due to old traditions and systems that refuse to die? How many atrocities are fulfilled through "divine judgement"? I will tell you the answer...NONE. You cannot prove this existence. You CANNOT. So why should we (atheists) allow decisions to be made based off of Gospel? I went off topic but really wanted to express my feelings about theism (or just religion) I know you are not a part of that system but I thought it would illustrate my position on the pitfalls of preconceived notions! "To make categorization of beliefs on God simple I tend to place them as theist, deist or atheist." It appears to me that each category can still fall under the massive scope of pantheism! Like I said many base their beliefs from books that acknowledge the alpha and omega! Even atheism fits if you explain to them that you are not trying to sell them a personal Jesus and are simply just taking the word "God" literally while not limiting the nature of something considered to be omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent to the confines of an immaterial, timeless being. "I happen to agree with panentheism. I think pantheism is best understood as a direct equation of God to Nature whilst denying God's existence. Many self-described atheists will gladly agree to tagging divinity to the universe and so may freely and rightly take on being called pantheist" Totally agree about atheists adopting pantheism (you were on to me from the beginning lol) But I think it seems slightly ad hominem (hate to use that word because not everyone knows what it means) to say that pantheism requires "denying" God's existence. Unless I misunderstood you.. To me Pantheism is not a declaration of conflict for other religions. In fact it is just an awareness of the possibility that God could exist as everything while also being timeless and immaterial. Pantheism lends itself to a wide range of justifications.. not necessarily proof. But again this just makes it equal to deism/ atheism which you claim is a reasonable conclusion! The funny thing to this debate is that we can credit the late Bill Hicks for my inspiration for pantheism! He mentions in a set that "Gods love is boundless and unconditional, and it is an illusion that you can ever be separate from God" First thing I thought was "That is way better than any other God that has ever been presented to me" I will say however that my atheistic side wants to call this a day because there is nothing further to discuss but the deist/theist in me wants to keep this going! 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 first started out by stating what is contradictory. It conflates God and Nature * Then I stated how I classify beliefs and how pantheism tends to fall in * I also stated how various religions already show pantheistic thoughts. * I ended suggesting pantheism be applied to atheists. Your conclusion is a revolving door of reason's for both sides! Which I have been clear to acknowledge (if not rebut)! I guess this win for me would not be due to my arguments but to the elusive nature of pantheism! You can't even argue it without agreeing with it first!