EDIT: To clarify myself, I feel that it is a waste of time to clarify something so specifically as to identify the exact chemical and physical differences between alive things and inanimate objects merely for the discussion of something SO incredibly speculative as 'if god exists, what is he made of and how could he be different from normal life'.

Post edited at 2:57 pm on July 6, 2008 by MotoMojo

-------
This is my signature.

It isn't my expectation of others, you see, for anyone to name specifically and exactly what god is made out of. If that were possible, nobody would argue that god doesn't exist. The whole point of this post was speculation, but you have clearly disregarded that purpose in favor of testing my ability to recite hardly relevant information.

Post edited at 3:00 pm on July 6, 2008 by MotoMojo

-------
This is my signature.

Post edited at 3:12 pm on July 6, 2008 by The Nowhere Man

-------
//

---

God is actually a pancake. I know this to be a fact, for I have seen him and we've had an in depth discussion about it, in which he described his thoughts about the results of his creation and his thoughts on how people will react when they read this post and find out that all the speculation can stop, and god is, indeed, a pancake.

---

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the "I believe" part in my post above. Thanks for catching me up on that one... Although your post is both unoriginal and it kind of fails as satire.

-------
//

Angel, you're mistaking my lack of value being placed on the specific reactions involved in facilitating life for an inability to explain my stance. Especially when you consider the fact that I haven't specifically identified a stance. What is my stance?

-------
This is my signature.

---

I'm sorry. I'm just becoming frustrated. This has been going on all day.

Angel, you're mistaking my lack of value being placed on the specific reactions involved in facilitating life for an inability to explain my stance. Especially when you consider the fact that I haven't specifically identified a stance. What is my stance?

---

's alright. I quite understand where you're coming from, even if I don't agree with all your points. Also, discounting spirit as an argument may be kind of fair, but it's probably going to be a big part of most theistic arguments; the same goes for your stance with "God must necessarily be bound by the natural laws and be corporeal if he exists in any way, shape or form" (if I interpreted your first post right). I'll choose to step out from here, though.

-------
//

Quoting myself.

EDIT: Although, I see now that a much more effective phrasing than 'reality' would have been 'known physics' maybe...

Post edited at 3:30 pm on July 6, 2008 by MotoMojo

-------
This is my signature.

---

I'm sorry. I'm just becoming frustrated. This has been going on all day.

Angel, you're mistaking my lack of value being placed on the specific reactions involved in facilitating life for an inability to explain my stance. Especially when you consider the fact that I haven't specifically identified a stance. What is my stance?

---

---

Take humans, the most intelligent known form of 'life'. Ninety-nine percent of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus. These elements are not "alive" by themselves, nor do they become "alive" if we just put them all into a container with each other. However, they are physically what we are composed of, and we are "alive".

---

Referring to the fact that the elements on their own, or combined without order in a container, are not alive, alleges the notion that there is a pattern to life. I cannot sit here and type out why some things of the same elements are alive and some aren't, because I don't know specifically. The only thing I was alluding to was that I suppose there to be some type of pattern to life, and I don't believe there's anything special about the elements that are alive apart from the ones that aren't. I believe it's by chance and, of course, reproduction of a similar organism, that these elements exist together in just the exact pattern so as to produce a living organism.

-------
This is my signature.

I believe that it's the same reason a car is a car, and a car that isn't running is a pile of metals. There is something that isn't allowing the function of that car, analogous to the pile of elements that is an organism. If something was once alive and it's dead, it's the same as something that was never alive in that something is preventing that particular collection of elements from reacting in such a way as to sustain life. Whether its a lack of a certain amount of one element needed to complete a reaction necessary for life or its a lack of a physical route for the elements to react, such as getting your head blown off.

-------
This is my signature.

---

Exactly. I don't see how I oppose myself or fail to clarify anything that I made claims of being able to clarify at all.  

Referring to the fact that the elements on their own, or combined without order in a container, are not alive, alleges the notion that there is a pattern to life. I cannot sit here and type out why some things of the same elements are alive and some aren't, because I don't know specifically. The only thing I was alluding to was that I suppose there to be some type of pattern to life, and I don't believe there's anything special about the elements that are alive apart from the ones that aren't. I believe it's by chance and, of course, reproduction of a similar organism, that these elements exist together in just the exact pattern so as to produce a living organism.

---

You said earlier that you are 'well versed in this area', what did you mean?

-------
"God does not play dice" - Albert Einstein
"God does play dice" - Stephen Hawking

Pectus Pectoris Memor