Right. I can (from this point of view) comprehensively say about "god" that it can prevent things, but I cannot comprehensively say the same thing about "the universe," because one *is* sentient and the other contains sentience (or however a person distinguishes them). On one hand, an image --a picture painted --of what god is, and on the other hand an image of what the universe is.
These two images are strikingly different, such that when you hear "god is the universe," and try to bring the two images together, one of them is going to be compromised. It's inevitable: in order to equate them, one of the images must warp from what was defined --for example, either sentience gets subtracted from "god," or "the universe" gains a god-like sentience, or perhaps some other way, but one of these pictures has to be warped in order to equate them. All dependent on the way we've defined them.
In pantheism, both these images get painted such that when they are held up side-by-side, even though they are not the same thing, nothing is compromised by bringing the images together. This should suggest that in having to warp one of the images, pantheism isn't being seen.
Hope this helps answer your question.
Because god and the universe are both painted in definition. The world is poetic --you and I are artists. When there is no compromise made in bringing together the painting of "god" and the painting of "the universe," both or either word's adequate and appropriate to describe that bit the world.
