Isn't that what all theists do? 

You could call it whatever you want. If there was convincing evidence that it existed I would believe in it.

I was. Well at least my parents were smarter than me at my birth and for a few years. And no, I would not worship them. Not really a big fan of worshiping anyone or anything.

Not yet that I am aware of. It is possible but I would rate it as highly unlikely. If there was such a being, it is not worthy of worship. It is certainly worthy of being careful around because of its awesome power but I reject the idea that simply because something created you it should be worshiped. Why would you worship something simply because it is powerful? Or because it created you? Do you worship your parents? We can prove that they created you.

Again call it whatever you like. I wouldn't worship it. Yes we could be in the Matrix. Unlikely, but not impossible. In absence of any evidence I will believe that it is not the case. 

What evidence? You have used absolutely none. You simply created a few scenarios in your head. It doesn't matter what scenario you create, if there is no evidence there is no reason to believe it. If there is evidence then there might be a reason to consider it. 

For the record, if you want to have a discussion without mud-slinging, you should post in the Kill 'Em With Kindness (KEWK) forum, where the rules of that forum are strictly designed for that purpose. This is the Atheist Vs. Theist forum, where mud-slinging is allowed as long as it's not trolling.

Default argument against pantheism: Why call it 'god'?

The 'world' meaning the Earth, or the 'world' meaning the universe?

I suppose there is a vanishingly small probability of random electrons having consciousness, but we have no evidence that such is the case. The only forms of consciousness we are currently knowledgeable about are the consciousnesses of living things. Most would argue that requires a brain, or similar organ, but I suppose it might be reasonable to investigate whether complex plant systems might have their own versions of consciousness. However, currently that would only be speculation. We do not have the evidence to support that.

It does. Us.

Oh, you mean the entire universe.

Suppose it does. Why should it be considered a god? What makes you think it would be perfect? Can you think of anything that is actually perfect? What is perfection?

The consciousness arising from our own brains isn't perfect. It isn't even perfect within the context of our own brains. Are you aware of what every neuron in your brain is doing? No. In fact, your consciousness is only a tiny part of what goes on in your brain. The vast majority of your mind is sub-conscious and/or non-conscious.

Why should we expect a universal consciousness to be perfect? We have no examples of anything that's actually perfect, let alone a perfect consciousness. And in any case, we have no evidence of any universal consciousness anyway.

But, hypothetically, if we consider the possibility of a universal consciousness, isn't it just as plausible -- if not more so -- that it is an incredibly slow and ponderous consciousness, that it evolved naturally from non-consciousness just as ours did, that it is imperfect and probably has many flaws as ours does, that it's not actually aware of everything as ours are not, that it is not omnipotent or omniscient as ours are not, that it may in fact have many stupid ideas and thoughts as ours often do?

Default argument against pantheism: Why call it god? If we happened to create a miniature universe with little conscious entities inside it (e.g. perhaps a computer simulation or AI, perhaps simply a self-contained eco-system with artificially created life), would that make us gods? No. We would still be humans. We may get those created entities to worship us and call us gods, but that wouldn't make us gods either. In fact, if one of those created entities asked the question, "Why are you guys calling the humans 'gods'?" I for one would consider that entity to be a cut above the rest.

Ironically, you're making a nice case against pantheism. Again, why call it god?

Why call them gods?

Ultimately, there is no evidence that we actually are such a universe. If future evidence showed that we probably are, then we'll talk about it. But until then, it is purely speculation. Are you going to actively believe this and have it influence your life decisions? Are you going to build a religion around the idea? Then I'd argue against the rationality of that based on lack of evidence. Just like every other 'god'.

It's not our job to entertain you. That would bore me to death.

You haven't actually made a case for pantheism. Where are your evidence, reason, and logic?

What is to gain from any of those propositions?

Let's say the universe is a vast quantum computer (a la Seth Lloyd's proposition that it is so). Further, let's say that it is a conscious vast quantum computer (which Lloyd most adamantly asserts is not so, but let's argo the proposition anyway).

Big deal. What does that gain us in knowledge, practical or otherwise? Our speculations on what it "thinks" is completely useless. What is it thinking? What it's next state will be? Is it admiring all the disparate life throughout the universe, like we admire the neurons firing in our brains? (That is, is it completely unaware of us, can it perceive us individually, and so on?) How can we ever know?

The problem with pantheism (and deism) is epistemic. Let's say we could somehow prove the universe "thinks," say through some form analysis of quantum behavior of dark matter. (Never mind that it's impossible at the moment. We're speculating a general thesis via a concrete example.) How do we determine what the universe is thinking, after we've established that it thinks? (This is similar to the problems we have with artificial intelligence. How do you simulate the power of the brain without constructing a brain?) How do we communicate? What do we do with that communication? The kinds of questions we want to ask are probably not within the experience of such a being.

Basically, once you start speculating a "what if?" scenario ('what if the universe were an immense supercomputer?') (with an answer of 42, of course), you have to continue speculating.

But, until we have empirical evidence one way or another, that's all it is: speculation. What knowledge can you gain from speculating about it? That is, unless you are prepared to devote your life attempting to gain empirical evidence.

And so I ask you, what's the point of assuming pantheism? (Or panentheism, if you want to get even more abstract.) What knowledge does it gain you? How does it help your life, or the lives of others?

WTF has "omnipotent" got to do with anything?? Are you a Theist trying to 'yank our chains', because only a Theist would seriously think of "omnipotence" as some inherent property of something 'God-like'.

That first 'suppose' actually makes no sense.

You should have asked "Suppose the world has a conscious mind".

The 'electrons present in the atmosphere' are almost all bound to atoms, and as such have very little interaction. As a potential consciousness, that is an extremely unlikely foundation. Mind seems to require some stable foundation that can support a complex persistent structure of interacting elements, with something that can have several stable states to serve as a memory, all of which implies the necessity of something solid, not liquid or gaseous.

And again, why would "encompassing everything" imply "perfect"? That is a non-sequiter. Another dumb Theist-style presumption.

As natural asked, WTF is 'perfect' in this context??

Nothing deserves worship. 'Worship' is also a stupid Theist concept.

If something is truly powerful, and in a position to do what it wants with us, we would obviously want to avoid pissing it off, of course. If it did insist we suck up to it, under threat, or even some promise of big reward, it would actually be even less worthy of 'worship', but maybe we would have little choice in the case of a threat, or maybe it may be worth it, in the case of promise, to at least pretend to 'worship' it, whatever that meant.

What has 'mortal' got to do with 'time not being constant'??

'Mortal' means of finite lifetime and/or capable of being killed.

In the case of Pantheism, the 'God' would almost certainly be 'mortal', in both senses. Everything we know about 'worlds' and 'universes' suggests that they are finite in lifetime.

In the case of super-powerful  trans-dimensional entities, they could still easily be mortal, in both senses, without any implications about the nature of time.

Again, 'imperfect' is an irrelevant and meaningless qualification.

The last proposition is the most relevant and plausible, and the uber-civilization could well be considered 'Gods'. Actually the last proposition is really structurally similar to the second.

Some strange irrelevant qualifications in there about 'perfection', 'omnipotence', and '(im)mortality', which Theists seem to always, unnecessarily, associate with 'God'. They are also attributes which could never be demonstrated to finite beings.