Perhaps. What do you think would have been a better category, DavidwithanR?
Yeah, I’ve heard it - it doesn’t make any fucking sense either.
Wait, what?! This is such a massive leap from what you’ve been describing all thread that I am now completely lost.
It depends on what you intend.
My perception (maybe wrong) is that you wanted an appreciative audience rather than a discussion group. I wonder whether a topic like this, where you seem to be more interested in presenting than discussing, would be better on a personal blog with comments turned off.
I don’t think any section of this board is especially 100% welcoming to false speculation about religion. (i.e. that thoughtful religious people would reject, let alone skeptical people.)
pondered; pondering play \ˈpän-d(ə-)riŋ
transitive verb
1 : to weigh in the mind : appraise pondered their chances of success
2 : to think about : reflect on pondered the events of the day
intransitive verb
: to think or consider especially quietly, soberly, and deeply
I would beg to differ. I think about all kinds of things, some more deeply than others, which fits the second definition just fine. Ponder that.
How so?
Pretending to think, isn’t the same as thinking. When you have an idea that’s mistaken, and some new ideas that are not mistaken, and you think about all of those together, the ideas gradually (or suddenly) rearrange themselves, and the mistaken idea soon gets pushed out of the way.
You say you don’t see any spiritual meaning in Life. I see profound spiritual meaning in Life in so many ways. Our very existence is to me a miracle. The way the plants and leaves know when to emerge in the springtime; the way fetuses evolve from nothing to something, and the way we evolve back into nothingness again at the end of Life; the way water freezes in such a way that ice floats on water, while other substances get denser when they become solid. The way Life not only exists but thrives on this planet, just one of trillions of potential homes for Life in the universe but so far the only planet that we know is capable of sustaining it. Certainly God is not required for any of this miracle of Life to exist, but what harm is it to you for those of us who see something spiritual about the whole experience? In my mind, if there is a God, then Life is the best expression of the power of that Deity. And if God doesn’t exist, then Life is still the most incredible thing that exists. Either way, Life is good for me.
I think it’s pretty presumptuous of you to suggest that I am only pretending to think. It’s a pretty rude suggestion actually. I’ve tried being polite to you, but I’m running out of patience. If you don’t like what I’ve written, fine. But you don’t have to be insulting to me as a fellow forum user.
There are thousands of inspirational quotes about life; here’s one I like.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180509/055b8db6a6f14a9011d9082f8aa32148.jpg
I wonder if it would be helpful for various people to remember that it’s okay to witness in Great Debates. Nobody has to agree with Biffster, and nobody has to give him one iota of slack when his definitions shift or he speaks unclearly or admits to having emotions, but the dude most definitely has a right to set up a soapbox here and ramble on about whatever he wants, even if it is complete nonsense.
(Not to say that it is, Biffster, but even if it is by Life I’ll defend your right to say it.)
I am super-okay with you cherry-picking your definitions, because it means you’re picking your definitions. Which is exactly what people, including me, have been demanding of you this entire thread.
And now that you’ve picked your definitions…I’d say that it’s damned clear that God isn’t love. God is a “spirit or being”, and love is an emotion experienced by spirits or beings. Definitely not the same thing. So let’s just put that aside.
I’m not super happy with your definition of “Life”, because it’s a bit self-contradictory - it’s conflating two obviously different things. Most of the definition is talking about a ‘force’ - something that’s either a physicalish substance (the legos one constructs a soul from), or an energy (the battery power one powers a soul with). (That could bear clarification, by the way - which is it? A substance or an energy?) But then at the end of the definition you say “all the experiences that make up the existence of a person”. That’s not a substance or energy at all - that’s data. Those are memories. Those are the words that are written on paper, not the paper itself as the rest of the definition implies. (Hopefully my meaning is coming through all the conflicting analogies.)
Short version - was leaving in that bit about the experiences an error? That sounds like small-l-life, which would be a distinct thing from your newly-conceptualized large-l-life, which seems to be positioned as part of metaphysical physics.
Probably should stop there for the moment - get the clarifications out of the way before we start talking about the implications of equating Life with a sentient dude.
Here’s another:
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180509/76a919aab37b6fca738cc8d0989ab578.jpg
The point is that Life, while meaning one thing to a biologist, can mean something very different to a philosopher or just an average person. No one holds a monopoly on the meaning of the word, because it has so many possible connotations.
I think to honestly give the concept posed in the OP a fair chance one must be willing to look beyond dictionary definitions and consider the connotations of words like Life or God (or Love). You need to think poetically to see the synchronicity among words that might appear disparate on the surface. If you can’t do that (or if you are unwilling to do that), then yes, obviously the theory that God=Life sounds silly on its face. But I think a number of you have not given it fair consideration.
It helps probably if one is a deist to begin with, because deists tend to see a connectedness between all of God’s creations anyway. But that doesn’t mean an atheist can’t appreciate the beauty and wonder of Life. There is much to marvel at in the natural world. A creator is not necessary to see the marvellous complexity of the world. Not for me, anyway. But something brought this word into being. I don’t what it was, but I’m thankful all the same.
Really, I would just like to see some of the negativity that has come up in this thread to stop. People can disagree without being disagreeable. There are some great minds here attempting to share some great insights.
It was physics!
It’s like how if you have a bunch of big marbles buried in a box of little marbles, you can sort all the big marbles to the top just by shaking the box. Simple physics gives unexpectedly intelligent-seeming results!
I hope you don’t think I’m one of those great minds. That sounds like an insult to great minds! 
There is a fundamental disagreement about what you present as “great insight”. I appreciate that you would like many of us who disagree with you to recognize these ideas as meaningful. Understand that it’s not that we don’t get what you’re saying, we do; we simply don’t agree with you. To that extent, you have to accept the fact that for many of us, your observations seem trite. And while we might not have better explanations for the meaning of it all, we prefer admitting to not knowing than resorting to wishful thinking and poetic flights of fancy.
No-one thinks that. 
Some might suggest this cookie suits me and my deepity ideas.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20180509/5cbc13ccc741c94995a6df8bc664c642.jpg
Fair enough. I appreciate your honesty. And your diplomacy.
Being able to laugh at yourself is the first step to being avoided at parties and public outings.
Did you miss a word? Or are you talking specifically about the people who start laughing at themselves at random times with no clear reason while holding large knives?
It’s the “no clear reason” bit, obv.
Oh, okay, good. (Fingers knife.)