You wrote in the past:
“There is a need to define the concept of God, but there is no need at all to define God or to know Him.”

So I will try to define the concept of God:
“the soul of souls” or “the soul of creation” —
the deepest point that exists in each and every detail of creation. And this is something infinite (unlike what pantheists hold), and it is all in all continually becoming more perfected / fulfilled.

The way to arrive at faith in this manner is from within, and not by intellectual proofs (as good as they may be).

I’ll illustrate:
For my own existence I don’t need intellectual proofs, but rather an inner experience.
Any intellectual proof can in any case be something that can be refuted, or at least doubted. And we’ve already seen more than once in the past intellectual things that were refuted. What matters is the cognitive aspect.

A proof that things need to be immanent / cognitive and not (only) external / intellectual:
You were given a platform on Ynet (probably the biggest platform one can get in the country), not once, not twice, and not three times. You got unimaginable exposure; one could say to almost all the rationalist Jews in the country (who know how to read).
And despite the fact that you tried very hard and expressed yourself well, I didn’t exactly see waves of repentance coming as a result of your articles (to put it mildly).
Of course one can write that “everyone is biased” and so on, and therefore they don’t go along with (or think along with) your logical move. But bottom line, if the intellectual proofs that lead to an “external existent” simply don’t do the job, one can certainly begin to doubt their effectiveness (though of course not their correctness).

It’s important to me to emphasize that I am not denying an “existence external to reality” as well, but there is no point in talking about it, because it’s impossible to talk about something that is truly “external to reality, but reality is not part of it.”
To talk about that is exactly like talking to a wall about quantum mechanics in a solid.
What relevance does that have to the wall?

By contrast, in my humble opinion, most people who become religious came to faith in God (real faith indeed, including accepting Torah and commandments) because they found the immanent place.

One more kind of proof (maybe more like a thought game):
You’ve surely heard of the Blue Brain Project.
What will happen if the project succeeds 100% and they actually create a human being who behaves like me or you?
How could they prove—or fail to prove—that he has consciousness / awareness, and that this is not really just the “perfect computer”?

Answer: they won’t be able to prove or refute it. It’s not an intellectual matter.
It’s a matter of awareness, and only he himself (the product of Blue Brain) will manage to “know himself.”
We will all be believers. There will be believers who believe he has consciousness, and there will be those who believe he is a “walking computer.”

I’ll summarize my words:
God is the “root of reality” — the most immanent, deep, and infinite place.
The way to arrive at divinity is through the matter of awareness.
Proofs for my approach have been brought.

I see a long message, but I didn’t see any proofs. Not even a trace. But that’s no surprise, because you didn’t define at all what you’re talking about. Is the soul of the world something else, something that is not the world? Please define it, and then we can talk.
Just one final remark. The question of what succeeds in bringing people to repentance is irrelevant to the question of what is true and what is well-defined. You also don’t know how many people became religious because of my arguments or because of the nonsense you wrote here. So spare me all that and address the point.
Good luck.

Whereas atheism denies a divine reality, and pantheism connects the divine reality and the world and binds them to one another, thereby erasing the meaning of divine reality and becoming atheism again.
1. A definition of panentheism
Panentheism claims the following: (on a simplistic level) the whole world is completely connected to divine reality, but only part of the divine reality is connected to the world.
2. What follows from this is that a person can know, from what happens in the world, part of the divine reality, but can never encompass all of it, since it is infinite, for it is divine.
Does this have meaning? — It has meaning.
A parable: a person arrives at an infinite pile of gold coins. Although he will never be able to take all of them, one cannot say that his arrival at the gold is meaningless; he can take many coins with which he can buy things, even if he can never grasp the pile in its entirety.
3. Illustration of the idea — if I see that the Jewish people are returning to their land, I can infer from this that God is returning the Jewish people to their land, and from this I understand that this is God’s will; therefore I will pack my things and immigrate to the Land of Israel and provide excuses for the Three Oaths.
4. Are there proofs for this? Certainly not. Panentheism is in the realm of conjectures; it does not pretend to prove. The question is whether it sounds reasonable to me or not. If my reason, in looking at reality in the world, shows me that it is divinity revealing itself in the world, then I will believe it; if it sounds unreasonable to me, I will not believe it. The fact that the theory has no proof does not necessarily mean it is incorrect. So why would I believe in it? Because it sounds reasonable to me.
I’d be glad to know, Rabbi.

I still don’t understand. Do the world and we exist or not? If the claim is that we exist but constitute part of God, then I don’t see how this differs from the regular conception. It just defines God differently. You are proposing to define reality + God and to give this whole composite the title “God.” Health and happiness. As far as I’m concerned, you can call it Tinker Bell. Exactly as I said: either pantheism or the usual dualistic conception (God versus reality).

The significance of defining reality as divine is that in the end it obligates one to believe that what happens in reality is a divine revelation, and consequently I need to learn the meaning of that divine revelation—what it obligates me to do, what it says to me.
Whereas the regular conception does not obligate one to say that a certain movement in the world is divinity, and consequently one must ask whether God acted to bring about that movement at all, and even if so, whether that necessarily means it is correct.
For example, in the previous example, in the panentheistic conception, the fact that the Jewish people are returning to their land is a divine movement brought about by that same God who is revealed within us, and He is also the same God who took us out of Egypt and gave the Torah.
In the regular conception, the fact that the Jewish people are returning to their land does not necessarily mean that God is bringing it about or wants it, and therefore one can say that God did not bring it about and also did not prevent it.
To sharpen the point: when one says that reality is divine, that means it is the same God who took us out of Egypt and gave us the Torah, and He is certainly being revealed now in reality—as opposed to the regular conception, which asks whether God intervenes in the world or not. That question and its implications are decided in the panentheistic conception: the world is divine, with all the implications that follow from that.

I asked for the definition of what you wrote, and you answer me with a practical difference. That is exactly like saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, brings about what happens in the world, and then too one can ask why He did what He did. Alternatively, even if it happens to Him but is not His handiwork, then maybe it’s just arbitrary. These are just words.