I completely agree with you on this, and would point out that I do say 'Pantheism, or something like it.'

In my reply to @soo.chong163's comment I state my position that it's not physics that argues against God, but the hubris of physicists. I think that's also your point, and I agree. Who are we to define God? We are merely competent to define our understanding of God, not God Himself.

I also refer to mathematics being called the language of God, and in the post I am referring to there is a lengthy interview with Leonard Susskind, who postulates the Holographic Universe and developed String Theory. I consider both of those theories examples of how mathematics is no more precise nor useful than any other language, and Susskind's maths quite mastubatory and expressions of hubris.

Just because a thing can be said, even with math, doesn't make it true. This is one of the flaws of our use of maths, and I point out the problem that it can't be used to state some things that are true, such as division by zero. I reckon the work of Susskind is a kind of corollary to that flaw, in that maths can also be used (in ways we currently accept) to say things that aren't true. String Theory can prove pretty much anything you want it to, and IMHO, a lot of that is just dividing by zero.

Thanks!