Pantheism is the belief that the universe and nature are numinous - that they and they alone are worthy of the reverence that traditional religions devote to “God.”
I never realized that I was STILL a pantheist.
So, after having read the hyperlink are you still going to compare “pantheism” to a place which serves up coffee or to viking wear?
We are BOTH the dreamer and the dream - the potter and the clay.
But that is not what pantheism means. Pantheism means, for example, that nature could be or is God resp. that God could be or is nature. Either God or nature is reserved.
I define Gods as supernatural entities with magical powers who reign over the cosmos or aspects of it, as supreme beings.
Like Asclepius was one such entity, he was the God of medicine, another was Athena, the Goddess of war and wisdom.
Pantheism means all is God, to me that’s as confusing as saying all is love, or all is pasta.
Existence consists of all sorts of things, some of these things we can prove exist, like pasta, and some of these things we cannot, like Gods.
To say existence itself is any one of these sorts of things, is a contradiction in terms.
The universe is a lot of things, it’s a lot of nothing too.
All of these things are somewhat interconnected (monism), but they’re also somewhat disconnected (pluralism) too.
Some of these things are intelligent and active, or relatively so at least, and some of these things are unintelligent and passive.
The supernatural is mysterious to us by definition, or it wouldn’t be the supernatural, so mysterious we can’t say very much about it with anything approaching certitude, even that it exists or does not exist.
So the universe, which isn’t anymore one than many, isn’t anymore intelligent and active than it is unintelligent and passive, and so it’s not God, which is something active, intelligent.
The universe isn’t supernatural, by definition it’s natural.
So to say the universe is God seems highly illogical to me, I don’t even think it has much poetic merit.
Yeah we’re the potter and the clay, I’ll give you that much, everything in the cosmos shapes itself and others, and is in turn shaped by others, but that’s not what God is, God is something that shapes, but is not shaped, or at least not very much, otherwise it wouldn’t be as worthy of awe and wonder.
The Gods of mythology are usually immortal, all or very powerful, that’s what makes them special and so unlike the things we know, which are ephemeral, and at the mercy of external forces and circumstances.
I don’t think saying we’re the potter and the clay makes us Godly at all, God was traditionally defined as something that partly or fully transcends time and space, the cycle of birth, growth, decay and death, same with soul.
So rather, the cosmos is a lot of things, it’s a little bit of this, a little bit of that, a little pleasure, a little pain, a little strength, a little weakness, in some sense everything is infinite and one, and in another it’s many and finite.
It’s all the things and it’s no things, it’s everything we can say about it and so much more, and less.
What it’s not is any particular thing we can imagine like God or don’t have to like rocks, trees and dirt.
Where as some religions like the Abrahamic religions, paganism and movements like spiritualism turn to the supernatural in order to ease their suffering, the Hindian religions turn to try to make the natural super, and in my view, fall short
They’re like two sides of the same coin.
I would much rather say life is life, it is what it is, and leave it at that.
I was not talking about my belief but about the definition of “pantheism”. So I was referring to, for example, Baruch Spinoza (cp. “Deus sive natura”) and other philosophers, for example some of the German Idealists and Romantics.
Anomaleigh
You said:
According to the hyperlink I inserted above …
Pantheism is the belief that the universe and nature are numinous - that they and they alone are worthy of the reverence that traditional religions devote to “God.”
Your definition spells out God akin to the very breath and spirit of God living in all things.
The above definition from the hyperlink is devoid of any concept of God. All IT sees is the universe and nature exclusively, standing alone on its own merits.
Maybe it’s akin to when one goes to a museum and observes a beautiful painting. One is fully absorbed only in that…notices only that. There is no artist - he is lost only in what is before him and the experience of that.
Another seeing the same painting will see the artist’s hand at work, will attribute the quality and characteristics to that artist whether he/she is known or not.
We all have our blind spots. lol
A useless concept with no foundation in reality.
Try to reason / justify your statement.
For me, the universe isn’t numinous, my feelings towards it fall somewhere between apathy and ambivalence.
Anomaleigh
What a pity. So what has the physical universe ever done to you to make you feel that way?
That probably means that you are far too much of a thinker to allow yourself the freedom to sense the beauty all around you. You’ve suppressed your feelings and your sensations.
Look up at the night sky at all of those stars and let yourself soar. Let it all in. The universe is so full of the luminous and the numinous.
What have you got to lose? Obviously something. 
You’re right, I should let more in, take a walk in the park or something, let things be as they are.
lol It doesn’t have to be the park but one is so close to nature in the park.
Well, in your case, according to what you wrote, you might not want to let things “be as they are”. You would want to gradually change things - at least your perspective of how you view the universe ~~ there are many things out there which can speak to you where you live inside yourself.
Just stop thinking for a moment or two and allow your senses to flow unimpeded. That might be very strange territory for you but don’t worry - you won’t get lost unless you’re meant to. Just look up or look OUT.
Or you don’t have to listen to me at all just do what you want to.
Are those principles inmortal like god(s) ore even like god(s), thus: divine realm = principles?
I’m a little skeptical.
Is there really an all-encompassing ontology? No theism is absent of doubt.
I don’t think there can be any principles at root, we ascribe principles to things, but prior to those things there is something else one would imagine.
JSS,
The Divine Realm is “physical” too, just not obvious obviously. It’s way more than mere principles. You have memories of a life lived, but no emotional attachments to those memories.
? … 
…
According to pantheism God is in everything resp. everything is in God, because God is nature resp. nature is God, or there is no God but only nature and humans just call nature "God“ resp. there is no nature but only God (the existence of the world is repealed - so to say).
The “gods” are the principles. The “God” is the one underlying (or over-arching) Principle from which all others are formed. As Moses put it [paraphrased], “The only true God: It is what it is. Worship nothing else”.
And only false principles “die”.
You have a different definition of “physical” and “divine” than I.
So they have to “die” in the mortal realm, thus as thoughts in the brain?
They can vanish from human thought. A perfect circle doesn’t stop being a perfect circle just because none are around and no one thinks of it. Principles and forms don’t change what they are or change in any way at all, thus there is no “dying” to be had. Perfect squares, laws of motion, and such “divine” concerns never, ever change in any way at all. They are “outside of time”.