A pantheistic argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

""Red" is a unicorn" doesn't mean "a unicorn" is "red". If "red" is a unicorn then "red" is no longer a colour it is a mythical beast that we call "a unicorn". If "a unicorn" is "red" then that means that what we normally would call the mythical beast that is "a unicorn" actually means the colour that we call "red".

Oh no no no no, you misunderstand, red is unicorn, nothing else....so, if to be a believer in fairy tales you mean "to believe in red" then I am a believer in fairy tales but if by believer in fairy tales you mean "believes in magical beasties" then I am not

You are confusing the concept of identity I reckon, not me. Because you are confusing the meaning of "god is the universe" and "the universe is god" and "red is a unicorn" and "a unicorn is red" with each other.

LOL, the troubles with identity that pantheism has are only marginally apparent in your argument, granted. Everything is god, collectively, but you probably wouldn't consider yourself god. It's a part/whole relationship thing. Mereological ontological argument stuff.

The general criticism of ontological arguments for the existence of a god is that they beg the question Doubt, that has been the general objection since the beginning of ontological arguments. Which is why I keep sking you why I (a reasonable person and atheist) would accept the premise that "a god exists and is the most influential thing"...and why it is unsurprising that you have concluded the universe is god when you began with god in the first place. Now, depending on the argument, (yours being loosely mereological) other criticisms arise. Your argument, for example, seems to be an argument for the existence of the universe...which you then label god for no discernable reason.....(I know I know, you hope to establish an ancillary point by this but you must first make the argument compelling before that point can be established...don't you think?) If you removed the assumption that god exists from the premise would you be able to conclude that the universe is god? Give that a try.

(I did use the same argument structure to conclude that my plate was god btw, which conflicts with your notion that the universe is god, can we both be correct? We both assumed that there was a god in our premise, and gave a definition for what it was, which is a very sneaky way of loading the premise with everything you hope to establish about a god in the first place, then you only have to plug in the thing whose definition or attributes you co-opted in the conclusion-by this line of reasoning god can be anything, including nothing....and that's troubling for the concept of identity..if an argument can give two conclusions for identity that are directly contradictory IE: "everything/not everything - just my plate-, something/nothing. Perhaps an even stranger idea, if I simply accept the criteria of influence could I not choose to ascribe something other than the universe as "the most influential thing" depending on my definition of influence? Ambiguity seems to come as a standard feature in these arguments, top to bottom.)