Panentheism and Brute Facts

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think you're just kicking the can down the road, and worse, pushing it into god-of-the-gaps territory.

If Divinity is part of (or in my opinion the whole of) reality then it makes sense to its influence could be ‘observed’ (more on that below) in natural phenomena.

Since primal matter has no properties, it can only be known through inference and deduction, making it impossible to demonstrate in any observation.

There is no such thing as purely empirical knowledge. Pretty much everything not immediately visible to the naked eye is known by inference and deduction. For example the star and spiral patterns visible in a chamber are just that, spirals and stars, until placed in the context of atomic theory. People consider a theory justified if their interpretation of the data fits neatly in their theoretical framework. Observation is itself a theory-laden claim. Moreover, you are completely wrong about primal matter, it has one and only one property, potency, the propensity to be.

…this requires placing the entire work load on the back of the reliability of reason, which in your worldview is little more than an assertion.

Yeah, and evolution is “ just a theory”… You’re hand-waving.

I personally do not put any faith in the premise that rationality is ultimately reliable, effectively infallible, but the long and short of it is that it is a premise that simply won't bear the weight. As noted before, the counter-factual of the premise that reason is reliable yields a paradox which can't be evaluated under classical logic, so that's two of your premises that have been pushed into the realm of the unknowable.

Is this a rational position? What other means of gaining this type of knowledge do you recommend “bear the weight”…intuition, mystical visions, tarot cards? Everyone knows that ideas can appear to be rational without actually being so. We’re only human. The reliability of reason depends on clear thinking and having good information. If you’re going to use that against me by saying my position is “little more than an assertion” then you must also level that charge on all positions, including your own.
Your reference to the liar’s paradox in no way undermines the validity of classical logic. Without content a proposition has no meaning. The self-referential structure of something like “This statement is false,” just keeps trying to borrow content from its own empty pockets. This is not a serious objection to the validity of logic or its application.

As a Hindu, I postulate that "All is Maya," everything is an illusion. How is one or the other more supportable in any real sense?

From having discussed this concept with life-long Hindus, I can say with confidence that “all is maya” does not undermine my position. In Western terms, a Maya-type illusion happens when accidental or secondary properties give the ego (itself a secondary construct) the false impression of a plurality that distracts it from the fundamental unity of reality. “All is Maya” is not the actual solution; but rather a prompt to contemplate of the tension between the Unity & Plurality and Being & Change. The difference between East and West is that, starting with the Greeks, the West’s intellectual tradition has approached the problem using rational inquiry whereas in the East various spiritual practices evolved to invoke experiences of gnostic insight. I see these as complimentary approaches, not in direct conflict.