While in general I disagree with your comparison of Godly attributes and worldly attributes, I think that the the obviousness with which the comparisons can be made are indicative of a deeper and more important point, namely, the notion that gods are anthropomorphicized conceptualizations (wow! there's a mouthful!
) of the universe.
It seems historically that man has crafted his god-myths from his deep inner knowledge of the universe's workings. Of course, man's god would be made in
man's image so that he could on the one hand identify with his god, and on the other hand project upon it his idealistic concepts of perfection. These then could serve as an impetus for every man's individual development.
While generally I take a position as an atheist, I happen to believe that consciousness is within every aspect of the universe. That is to say, I think panpsychism is the answer to Chalmer's "Hard Problems" of consciousness. This position could be interpreted to mean that I
do believe in a god: the universe, since I do believe the whole universe to have a unitary consciousness within which individualized consciousnesses are completely transparent; however, my position is most consistent with atheistic philosophy since it is, for example, wholly naturalistic, and I don't think the "omni" notions that typically characterize gods are appropriate when assigned to the universe, etc...
On a more relevant point, I think it is important to note that almost all cosmological arguments for the existence of gods involve special pleading on behalf of the god in question, when nearly all exceptions granted to the proffered god could likewise apply to the universe.
"Well, God doesn't have or need a beginning/first cause. God just exists."
"Guess what? The same can apply to the universe."
So anyway, those are my comments on pantheism. Personally I think that pantheism and atheism differ merely on definitions, but not necessarily in actual philosophy.