Thanks. Ok, will the definition I gave treat2 suffice? Cause that's about everything that I could say to you on that. After defining Pantheism as believing that God and the Universe are the same the question then becomes why and how are they believed to be the same? Do you agree?

I'm a little worried that you mean this with a hint of sarcasm, but by the rest of your post it doesn't look like it.  Inflection is so hard to gauge in these forums sometimes.

Absolutely. Got a few years to spare?

Kidding, mostly. Yeah I will expand as much as I can for you.

I usually begin with (b) because (a) presupposes an anthropomorphic agency which is established by consideration of what modern science suggests about the human condition. So basically, as I often say, the shortest path to making my argument is to address the belief that the essence of our being is biological.

Now by that I don't mean to suggest that biology is not relevant to what we are, this is not a dualism, and I'm not going to introduce an intangible 'soul' essence to
supplant our existence in biological terms. The issue I would raise is that even as we define human being as limited to a cycle of growth and decline for a set of
integrated biological systems over an interval organised by the system's infinitesimal variations (we call this interval, time) we are aware that we are not such a closed system, moreover, that no such an insular system even exists in reality.

Since we started on that, a little on the cause-effect model because it is relevant. The cause and effect hypothesis presupposes this ordering of variations, time, in a particular form. Specifically what is supposed is that a time entity of finite length exists and at one end of it there is a region of undefined potential. The initial length is cause and the region of potential is the logical consequence of absolute time. Both of these are necessary preconditions of the cause-effect relationship model.

So causality essentially states that there is 'room' in which effect has potential to exist and it is time. This concept of time best matches the Newtonian model. In that, it is undermined, a necessary prerequisite of believing cause is fundamental to existence is defunct. Einstein tried for the rest of his life to salvage the idea of cause-effect as the Prima materia, his forebears had believed it was, and it seemed to be all that could hold the promise of truly understanding the universe.  But after relativity the universe was no longer a succession of small events tumbling out into a long stream no longer made sense, in this new universe, it seemed, everything that was and ever will be is laced together in a web work that crosses dimensions we find difficult to conceive. Where we had thought every moment in time could be neatly joined by cause, we have found that it is just one of possibly infinitely many relationships that can exist between two points in spacetime, and that is essentially only characteristic of organisation at certain orders of magnitude, not of others.

The definition of our being as biological rests on an assumption of insularity. Insularity rests on, among other things, the idea that cause is the fundamental order that exists in the universe. That effects aren't there until cause has passed and is gone, and so, that humans succeed the role of human genes, and genes succeed the role of the molecules that comprise them. The model of cause rests in the idea that a mechanism by which the role of a predecessor entity transfers to a new emergent entity passes in and then quickly out of existence at some point on a timelike interval. Such a model makes predictions like - there exists a time (t) at which point the activity of self-replicating chemical strands ends and the activity of a biological organism begins such that the activity in the chemical strand has now 'caused' the emergent entity to exist. Evolution scientists, generally, don't take this idea very seriously any more. It becomes fairly obvious just from looking at that statement that no such actual mechanism for discerning the two entities exists, you could draw any line any where on the process of differentiation between these forms with equal meaning.

What we do realise, moreover, is that the randomly flipping chemical chains never actually stop being and they continue to do what they've always done, as the essence of the emergent entity, not distinct from it. So what you have there is a continuum of being. I've arbitrarily started it at primordial life so that we might say that the continuum is the being of primordial life, although this is not strictly true.

There is no point (t) at which primordial life stops being what it always was. What changes is the environment in which it continues to be that. And note, that, primordial life changes that environment itself, not unlike we do on this order of magnitude. In terms of the order of magnitude in which the existence of primordial life has continued for millions of years, the human biological form, and other biological forms, are its built environment.

So this is how the requirement that we are made in the image of the universe starts to look fulfilled. The biologically organised hub of activity, our body, is a universe in which another ages old creative entity, our genetics, operates.    
 
I must go now, I have a birthday party to attend. I know it took a lot to make one small part of the point, but as I said, this is a package of reasoning that could take a long time to fully disseminate. I'll leave you with this much to at least respond to for now. 

Freehugs I promise to write a reply for you just as soon as I get the time.

So am I right then? You are just redefining matter and the laws of physics as god?...