# God and Life **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 26, 2018, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192 "2018-04-26T22:27:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/301 "2018-05-05T19:40:32Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Though you might be hard-pressed to find a picture of Life, as opposed to “things that are alive,” there is no shortage of pictures of God. Nope. You don’t get to have it both ways. If you won’t accept a picture of a living thing as representing the concept of life, then you don’t get to say that a picture of a god represents the _concept_ of a god. BTW, [which one of these do you mean](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&biw=1056&bih=509&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=9AjuWrvGIYm3jwTKprTQAg&q=gods&oq=gods&gs_l=img.3..0i67k1j0i10k1j0i67k1j0j0i67k1l2j0l4.13817.13817.0.15155.1.1.0.0.0.0.733.733.6-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.1.730....0.qsi9jSugSXk)? ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/302 "2018-05-05T20:11:45Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > We got it-_ **You Can’t Take A Picture Of A Concept** _. > > Next point, please? And yet many thousands of people throughout history have. There are oodles of pictures of God. That’s the point. What does that tell you about people? That perhaps people see what they want to see? Or believe what they want to believe? There is strong evidence for that here in this thread, myself included. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/303 "2018-05-05T20:14:32Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > No problem. So can you produce a picture of life? [Easy.](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91a5uQnZf2L._SL1500_.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/304 "2018-05-05T20:14:48Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Nope. You don’t get to have it both ways. If you won’t accept a picture of a living thing as representing the concept of life, then you don’t get to say that a picture of a god represents the _concept_ of a god. > > BTW, [which one of these do you mean](https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1&biw=1056&bih=509&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=9AjuWrvGIYm3jwTKprTQAg&q=gods&oq=gods&gs_l=img.3..0i67k1j0i10k1j0i67k1j0j0i67k1l2j0l4.13817.13817.0.15155.1.1.0.0.0.0.733.733.6-1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.img..0.1.730....0.qsi9jSugSXk)? Exactly. There are many depictions of God; none has a monopoly on the truth. There are also many depictions of life. I prefer vast swatches of rainforest or a fetus in the womb. All I was proposing is that both God and Life are abstract nouns. It would appear you agree. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/305 "2018-05-05T20:15:00Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Though you might be hard-pressed to find a picture of Life, as opposed to “things that are alive,” there is no shortage of pictures of God. And every single one of them, drawn by a human, seems to appear humanoid somehow. Can’t imagine why that might be. [or not](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2650/3947553770_6da37ab1b1_z.jpg?zz=1) ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/306 "2018-05-05T20:17:08Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > [Easy.](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91a5uQnZf2L._SL1500_.jpg) Nice. There is also this. [https://www.google.ca/search?q=life&client=safari&hl=en-ca&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvhMXVse\_aAhVE2oMKHTDUDHAQ\_AUIESgB&biw=375&bih=559#imgrc=Oh5nd1M950joHM:](https://www.google.ca/search?q=life&client=safari&hl=en-ca&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvhMXVse_aAhVE2oMKHTDUDHAQ_AUIESgB&biw=375&bih=559#imgrc=Oh5nd1M950joHM:) ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/307 "2018-05-05T20:18:25Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > [or not](http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2650/3947553770_6da37ab1b1_z.jpg?zz=1) You have been touched by his noodly appendage, I see. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/308 "2018-05-05T20:18:44Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > And yet many thousands of people throughout history have. There are oodles of pictures of God. That’s the point. What does that tell you about people? That perhaps people see what they want to see? Or believe what they want to believe? There is strong evidence for that here in this thread, myself included. How does this pertain to your own OP, that “Life” is “God” and vice versa? And don’t tell me to see that video again-This is _your_ thread, not his. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/309 "2018-05-05T20:25:32Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > How does this pertain to your own OP, that “Life” is “God” and vice versa? And don’t tell me to see that video again-This is _your_ thread, not his. I wouldn’t tell you to see that video again. I’d say check out one of his books. In any event, for me, if God is Life and Life is God, it simplifies matters immensely. First, there is no need for that Catholic guilt I grew up with. Second, it doesn’t matter whether I worship or not, because we’re all going to the same place when we die. And I have no idea what that entails—probably good for worms or ashes scattered on the wind. But this thread was not created to dissect what I think; it was created to spark a discussion on a rather unorthodox idea, both in the field of religion and the field of science. And I am getting the gist of what you believe, Czarcasm. It seems you believe this is all rather silly. Correct me if I’m wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/310 "2018-05-05T20:41:34Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > All I was proposing is that both God and Life are abstract nouns. It would appear you agree. It would appear that you are wrong. As I have mentioned, when I say “life”, I mean “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing evolution by natural selection.” That is _not_ abstract–that is a description of a real, tangible thing. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/311 "2018-05-05T20:53:31Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > But this thread was not created to dissect what I think; it was created to spark a discussion on a rather unorthodox idea, both in the field of religion and the field of science. Neither mainstream religion, nor science, espouses the idea that: _Life=God_. So how would you characterize the field of thought related to this concept? Fiction literature?.. New-age Spirituality?.. Pseudo-Science?.. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/312 "2018-05-05T20:59:46Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > It would appear that you are wrong. As I have mentioned, when I say “life”, I mean “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of undergoing evolution by natural selection.” That is _not_ abstract–that is a description of a real, tangible thing. I’m sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that’s alive, but not life itself. So could I. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/313 "2018-05-05T21:03:07Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Neither mainstream religion, nor science, espouses the idea that: _Life=God_. So how would you characterize the field of thought related to this concept? > > Fiction literature?.. New-age Spirituality?.. Pseudo-Science?.. Probably New Age. Definitely not mainstream religion. Or mainstream science. Given the rather predictable arguments between theists and atheists (science types) that I have read in other threads on these boards, I was wondering if there was any overlap in the fields of religion and science. There’s not a lot, but both fields seem to deal with life, though they come at it from very different directions. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/314 "2018-05-05T21:06:31Z")
I haven’t forgotten, Begbert: post #248. Still thinking about it. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/315 "2018-05-05T21:39:09Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I’m sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that’s alive, but not life itself. So could I. But you are the only one who thinks that statement is in any way pertinent, useful, meaningful, or deep. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/316 "2018-05-05T21:39:54Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > I’m sure you can find a picture of an example of life, something that’s alive, but not life itself. So could I. I can take a picture of a rainbow (and have), but it is not a real, tangible thing. The difference between abstract and concrete is not binary but continuous. 17 is abstract: you could take a picture of 17 tomatoes, but it is a picture of tomatoes, not of 17, and if you crop it, it becomes 12 tomatoes, but not a picture of 12. Then there is _x_, which is abstract in a different way from 17. We can establish a fixed value for 17 + 4, but the value of 17 + _x_ is not fixed. This does not mean that _x_ is **more** abstract than 17, just abstract in a different way. Cement is concrete. We can touch it, manipulate it, study it, take pictures of it. Wind is also in the concrete realm. We cannot take direct pictures of it, but we can study it, feel it, create it artificially. It is not less concrete than cement, just concrete in a different way. Actions are also not abstract, but they are not quite concrete. We can take a picture (or video) of someone running, we can study running and its effects. Actions are a sort of extancy that lie on the boundary between abstract and concrete, but mostly on the concrete side. Abstract things do not directly enter the cause-effect chain but exist outside it. Life is not abstract because it lies within the cause-effect chain. A deity might exist somewhere within the chain, or on the end of it, but so far, it has provided no evidence that it exists, no and justification for its existence. It is not even a theory but a putation that is, quite frankly, so irrelevant that it does not even qualify for being abstract. If you want to worship life, go for it, but I would not expect life to offer you anything in return for you adoration. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/317 "2018-05-05T22:00:47Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > But you are the only one who thinks that statement is in any way pertinent, useful, meaningful, or deep. Well, me and the author of the book, for starters. So that’s at least two. ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/318 "2018-05-05T22:14:34Z")
> [@Biffster](#): > > Well, me and the author of the book, for starters. So that’s at least two. Unless the author of the book said that life is an abstract that can’t be photographed and you have failed to mention that you are copying all of this from him, then the author of the book has nothing to do with it, because that is the statement that I was talking about. As for the author, he is either an addle-minded new-age flake (like Deepack Chopra) or a cynical conman who knows how to run a lucrative con (like L. Ron Hubbard.) Either way, I have not the slightest trace of respect for him or his writing. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/319 "2018-05-05T22:16:56Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > I can take a picture of a rainbow (and have), but it is not a real, tangible thing. > > The difference between abstract and concrete is not binary but continuous. 17 is abstract: you could take a picture of 17 tomatoes, but it is a picture of tomatoes, not of 17, and if you crop it, it becomes 12 tomatoes, but not a picture of 12. > > Then there is _x_, which is abstract in a different way from 17. We can establish a fixed value for 17 + 4, but the value of 17 + _x_ is not fixed. This does not mean that _x_ is **more** abstract than 17, just abstract in a different way. > > Cement is concrete. We can touch it, manipulate it, study it, take pictures of it. Wind is also in the concrete realm. We cannot take direct pictures of it, but we can study it, feel it, create it artificially. It is not less concrete than cement, just concrete in a different way. > > Actions are also not abstract, but they are not quite concrete. We can take a picture (or video) of someone running, we can study running and its effects. Actions are a sort of extancy that lie on the boundary between abstract and concrete, but mostly on the concrete side. > > Abstract things do not directly enter the cause-effect chain but exist outside it. Life is not abstract because it lies within the cause-effect chain. A deity might exist somewhere within the chain, or on the end of it, but so far, it has provided no evidence that it exists, no and justification for its existence. It is not even a theory but a putation that is, quite frankly, so irrelevant that it does not even qualify for being abstract. > > If you want to worship life, go for it, but I would not expect life to offer you anything in return for you adoration. And that’s precisely the point: Life expects nothing from you (I really enjoyed your post, by the way). It has no commandments, no judgement, no necessity for worship or adoration. No sacred books, no sacred language, no sacred rituals. It does not require you to take sides. It has no special day of the week. There is nothing you have to offer or give up in order to be alive. Life is what you have from the second your heart starts beating until it stops at the end of your life. Some would say you are not alive until you take your first breath, but I would disagree. In fact, defining exactly when life begins is a tricky prospect because semantics don’t really do life justice. We have a pretty good idea what life is, even if we can’t exactly draw it on a chalkboard, and we certainly feel the effects of life. I don’t think there’s anyone who denies the existence of life. Maybe on other planets. I find life fascinating. I’m sure you do too, especially when you stop to examine the beauty of nature. I also find God fascinating, but not quite the same God I grew up with. My views of God have evolved, and I see myself much more of an atheist these days. However, I’m not ready yet to abandon the concept of God as a creative force in the universe. I figure there must be something that inspires so many people throughout mankind’s history. For me, God as Life—or something like it—just works. I’m not really writing this for someone to tell me I’m wrong; I’d just like to see if anyone else has insights to offer about Life. Or God. Or both. It doesn’t matter to me if you don’t agree. ---
**Author:** ![Biffster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/biffster/32/339_2.png) [@Biffster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffster)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2018, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192/320 "2018-05-05T22:20:20Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > Unless the author of the book said that life is an abstract that can’t be photographed and you have failed to mention that you are copying all of this from him, then the author of the book has nothing to do with it, because that is the statement that I was talking about. > > As for the author, he is either an addle-minded new-age flake (like Deepack Chopra) or a cynical conman who knows how to run a lucrative con (like L. Ron Hubbard.) Either way, I have not the slightest trace of respect for him or his writing. And so you have said. But why does it matter so much to you if someone else appreciates what he has to say? I think you are being a little dismissive of certain ideas that don’t fit your world view because it’s easier for you that way. Why does it matter to you what I believe? Why should it matter to me what you believe? Surely two people with differing viewpoints can still have a civil conversation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/god-and-life/813192.md?page=17)