You give it too much credit. I don’t see how it *could * have evidence to support it. The idea is not well-defined enough.
I see a connection between Satan and satin and steer clear of The Devil Fabric.
But at least we’ve established that you assume only one specific God, which designed the universe with modern English word forms in mind.
My point was that they all, without exception, redefined the term “God” for their own means and ends. What’s different about the way you are redefining “God” by calling it “Life”? Can you not see that once you’ve convinced enough people of your point of view, it’s a short walk to start establishing parameters of how to honor “Life” by how one lives and behaves? I know you wouldn’t manipulate this idea to something nefarious, but plenty of others might, and have done exactly that throughout history and present.
Also, re-read the definition of deepity, as posted earlier. It really should persuade anyone interested in logic and reason to avoid the type fatuous arguments you’re (unintentionally?) promoting.
What I gleaned from a quick scan of the article is that if you completely redefine the words “God” and “Life” you can make them interchangeable.
But you could probably do that with any two words.
Neither.
I feel like I need to redefine the words, “agree with Clothahump”. 
I just check several dictionaries, and it seems that “God” and “Life” still aren’t synonyms…unless of course you have evidence that “God” was once the name of a board game, breakfast cereal or magazine.
At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items.
I like the definition of “deepity,” although I don’t think that’s what I’m promoting. I think, based on the numerous threads on the same subject, that the concept of God is problematic for a great number of people. So easy to disbelieve in. Walsch’s description got me thinking however, over ten years ago, and the shoe still fits so I’m wearing it. I have no problem with redefining God, since I don’t think He or She was all that well-defined to begin with.
At one time I could ride a public bus from March AFB to downtown Los Angeles for only a $1.50.
That’s your problem: you’re attempting to find a truth about the universe using a dictionary. This requires some deeper thinking.
True, on a purely semantic level. But what Walsch is proposing is not simply semantics, I don’t think. If you think about what life does, what its purpose is, there is much more to contemplate. No one doubts the existence of life either.
Okay, here’s an immediate problem that I can see: If you redefine “God” as “Life”, any potential issues with respect to a woman’t right to abortion? Perhaps not for you, but for those who take this concept of “God is Life” a little too seriously.
Your thinking is rather wide, but under no circumstances would I call it “deep”.
There are plenty of things in the Universe that don’t depend on life, including some that are very beautiful and complex. And indeed, so far as we know, for most of the Universe’s history, there was no life at all.
How much is it now?
Who gives a shit? It has about as much to do with the topic of this thread as your little bon mot “At one time matter and energy were defined as two separate and distinct items.”
My point exactly, though it is apparent you still missed it. Hint look up “philosophical thought experiment”
If you define God as Life itself, then at best you might(if you don’t think about the consequences too deeply) establish some sort of internal consistency in your mind…but rationality has nothing to do with it.
Unless you have your own private definition of “rational”, of course.
Does it ever bother you at all that religious/theistic thought hasn’t had an original idea in centuries (if not millenia), yet is completely shameless in plagiarizing & co-opting scientific concepts and discoveries without doing the hard work required to show why all of a sudden, ‘God=Life=Love=Pie’?