Panentheism is an odd belief by itself since most religions are technically panentheistic.

From my understanding just panentheism by itself indicates "god" is essentially unknowable, and I'm not sure what the distinction between agnostic and panentheistic would be unless one attaches other doctrine.

Or maybe we're talking pantheism? There you'd have to define "god" or "gods"

I professed Pantheism for a short while but decided it was the wrong definition for me. I’m an Atheist and simply accepted that.

Have to admit I don't know a whole lot about either belief stance, but here are my thoughts.

If Panentheism holds God as the soul of the universe, I would still be agnostic about that. Until more is known about the spark of energy or the source of creation we currently just call nature, I'm happy to still call it nature. I can be in awe of the things created between time and nature, in the field of space and matter, without believing there is a soul to it called God. There is definitely a (currently unknowable) cohesion but I'm happy to simply be in awe without believing I know what it is just yet, but to keep wondering.

If Pantheism is the belief that everything is divine, well that just depends on whether you consider that divinity to be supernatural, or simply from the same natural source we all come from. If you can feel a kindred spirit to everything around you because "we are all star stuff" with the same carbon base, it can feel just as spiritual as the belief that a supernatural source created everything and so everything is related to that "parent".

I just prefer to keep my definitions to what we know so far with naturalistic reasons for how things came to be, with the hope that we can still someday discover that spark of energy or source of creation, and simply remain in awe of it until we do. I don't need to name it God.

Brahman as described in the Bhagavad Gita sounds very pantheistic, and the Qur’an opens on that note also IMO. I think that in order to see that philosophy as viable you have to consider the part played in reality by consciously aware entities such as ourselves. Yes, the universe is aware, and we are a part of that awareness.

Although some earlier Western world views may seem panentheistic in retrospect, I think it is only the God of Alfred North Whitehead's Process and Reality that currently goes by that name.It is the God of the Process Theology courses taught in Christian divinity schools. This God has three natures. His Primordial nature holds the potentiality for the future, which includes math, geometry, and the totality of Platonic forms (but for him they are potentials while for Plato they are actualities). His Consequent nature IS the totality of the past. That is, when a day (or hour or second) has passed it doesn't just fall into nonexistence but rather goes into the formation of the "body of God." And his Superjective nature is relationship between the Primordial and Consequent natures (the future and the past) in the effecting the actual (natural) world of the present.
This is not a personal God, and human beings don't become "pseudo-angels" when they die. However they do have "objective immortality" in that their lives are preserved as "ingredients" in God's consequent nature. In fact, each of our pasts is already there.
To this a Christian theology I think the Bible has to be completely demythologized--else the three natures would not line up with three persons of the Trinity. Also, unlike the orthodox concept of God who is compete "from everlasting to everlasting," this God is ever in the process of becoming as the present continually pours into his Consequent nature. Hence, Process Theology.

As an avowed anti-theist, I'm gonna vote "no".

First, agnostic is not an alternative to theism or atheism. Agnostic relates to a level of certainty. Theism is the belief in a god. Atheism is lack of a belief in a god. I am an atheist, but I do not have complete certainty in my belief (because I don't think that is possible). In other words, you can view theism and atheism as two ends of a continuum and agnosticism shows where you are on the continuum. I consider pantheism as a very weak position to argue from. I have never seen someone mount a strong argument for this position. However, if you know of one, then I would be glad to look at it.

I am content describing myself as a godless heathen. You should call yourself whatever feels right to you!

these really are questions you need to weigh up for yourself because they are personal to hte answerer I have never had any religion/god so cannot help you decide between definitions - I don't do definitions i am just godless

While l had 'labeled' myself as agnostic for several years, l eventually jumped off the fence and went full atheist. Unfortunately, atheists get a bad rap and the name never fully suited me. Some years ago, l stumbled across The World Pantheism Movement and its basis really spoke to me. I then began using the 'label' of Pantheist, but would constantly have people challenging me about what it meant. The problem is, the meaning is different based on where you find your answer and it got really old having to explain myself to people when that aspect is only a small part of who l am as a whole. As with everything, it still comes down to the individual interpretation of it, but l am not into labeling things anyway, as it's too restrictive and leaves no room for any variation.

I'm not familiar with Panetheism, so can't speak to that.

Not sure that l actually answered any of your questions, but there ya go!?

If one finds the idea of a supernatural being ridiculous, then I suppose multiple supernatural beings would be equally or perhaps exponentially more ridiculous.