Please provide me arguments for and against pantheism?

The most rational argument between Pantheism and Monotheism, other than the definition of the word "God", would be the difference in how ethics are perceived and the "incentive" to make "good" choices. Monotheists typically act out of a fear of divine punishment or hope of divine reward, while Pantheists act out of a mutual respect for all things. A well known argument against Pantheism comes from Schopenhauer, who believed that Pantheism has no ethics because everything that is done is considered to be equally "divine and excellent".

Yet another argument arises from within the Pantheist community itself, consisting of the difference in the perception of the "nature" of God. Classical Pantheists believe in a personal and omniscient God, where Naturalistic Pantheists believe in a non-sentient Universe as an unconscious and impersonal "God".

There are small groups of believers in almost all the branches of religion who incorporate Pantheistic elements in with their own beliefs. There are also many that believe that Pantheism is a form of monotheism, in that the belief is in a single, all encompassing universe as God, with the difference in beliefs centered around the abstract versus the actual conceptions of what or "who" God is.

Pantheism eliminates the logical absurdity of a God who is somehow apart from his creation. Pantheism basically states God is all, and that includes science, reason, and logic. There are no superstititions in pantheism--no miracles (except for natural phenomena we don't yet understand), no prophets, no priests, no heaven or hell, no prayer, no revelation. It leads to reverence and respect for Nature, the feeling of connectedness to all things, respect for others, etc. Basically, it's the only rational "faith" there really is, apart from Deism.

http://www.pantheism.net/

Modern Pantheism has a strong naturalistic current running through it. Pantheists like myself, if we use the word "God" for the universe, tend to mean that the physical universe as revealed by science deserves all the reverence that other people give to deities. However, many of us (including me) generally use the word "God" very little or not at all, to avoid confusion.

Think about it: the elements giveth, and the elements taketh away. All things in the universe do everything that any god has been said to do. They give life, and take it away. They create things in their image. All things resemble something older than they themselves are. The universe molds itself by each parts individual will. Man changes the landscape, volcanoes destroy it, nature rebuilds it. The universe splits the jobs of a god and at the same time, all things have the potential to also do the other jobs as well.

Interesting that you wish to narrow your field of discussion past limiting it to the use of reasoned arguments. I do see this often, that some wish to debate any point accept the possibility that the very premise their world view is based on is not valid. I believe you must first establish the validity of a premise, before drawing conclusions from it.

On the other hand, it is encouraging to see someone who embraces a logical approach. I encourage you to question all statements and ideas, even those you hold dear.

There can only be one Creator GOD by definition.

He has to be eternal in order to be the prime mover.

Something/someone had to bring the universe into being.

An inanimate object cannot will itself into existance.

A Creator, by definition, is greater than His own Creation.

An inanimate universe is not capable of communicating.

Give me 20 bucks and I'll help you with your homework. No freebies.

Pantheism is fairly meaningless.

The term "god" is fairly undefined. However, it generally means some kind of sentient being. There is no evidence of the universe being some kind of sentient being, though there are sentient beings living within it. To say the universe is sentient would be like saying that a house is sentient because people are living within it, but that really would stretch the concept of sentience.

So, you could stretch the already fairly vague term "god" to mean "universe", but that would make it even more meaningless than it already is.

When you lie in bed at night wondering why you are here, do you ask the tree outside your bedroom window for the answer?

FOR: Zero arguments

AGAINST: Many arguments, but each of them hangs on good old common sense and sheer logic....isn't that a heart-breaker??