Are you satisfied that I can identify between living and non-living now? Or will you continue to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about to discredit my question all together? I am just asking for a Christian's view on something that I have often considered to be a fallacy of the common belief in "god".

Now, what is your belief?

Post edited at 12:12 pm on July 6, 2008 by MotoMojo

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

---

A rock is not capable of responding to its environment in any way other than.. well.. a rock. It corrodes over time and moves when a force is exerted upon it. The rock does not convert energy from any form to any other form.

A tree converts light, C02, and water to oxygen, sugar, and, in a round-about way, more tree.

---

>>But why does a rock not do that and a tree does?<< Because it's a rock, and it's not a tree. That is why. If you need me to explain each individual reaction that occurs to facilitate life before you are satisfied that something is alive, then we should both be at a university right now doing extensive research.

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

---

Also, I obviously wasn't inferring that every living thing had a uterus. That would be preposterous to suggest.  

Are you satisfied that I can identify between living and non-living now? Or will you continue to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about to discredit my question all together? I am just asking for a Christian's view on something that I have often considered to be a fallacy of the common belief in "god".

---

Much like scientists once thought about the universe, most religions that believe in a Creator God believe He had no beginning.

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

Pectus Pectoris Memor

---

My question is not what constitutes life. In my OP, I briefly explained what I consider to be living, and I asked how theists' view of God fit into this. Would you even consider god to be living? Do you think he came into existence or has always existed?  

>>But why does a rock not do that and a tree does?<< Because it's a rock, and it's not a tree. That is why. If you need me to explain each individual reaction that occurs to facilitate life before you are satisfied that something is alive, then we should both be at a university right now doing extensive research.

---

I believe that for something to have thought (be intelligent), it must be born and die. This is because, I believe, thought adheres to the relativity theory as coherently as physical location. Furthermore, I believe that without a point of reference (IE - beginning and an end), relative thought is not possible. Something that has 'experienced' everything knows no difference between a second and a minute, up and down, etc., and can therefore not be considered to be intelligent or harbor thought of any kind.

Post edited at 12:24 pm on July 6, 2008 by MotoMojo

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

---

Oh yeah I forgot to be sure of our understanding of "god". He is considered to be intelligent and conscious, correct?

---

It's not that birth or death has to be a part of thought, it's just that nothing intelligent, IMO, can be alive forever. To solve a mental problem you must have dimensions of the problem, all of which are relative to some other dimension, otherwise they would be the equivalent of saying, "a bug is the size of a bug." If you have no 'yardstick' of birth and death, time, and thereby thought, is impossible.

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

---

It would matter because anything that's not capable of thought can't be capable of consciously creating a universe on its own will-it doesn't have will.

It's not that birth or death has to be a part of thought, it's just that nothing intelligent, IMO, can be alive forever. To solve a mental problem you must have dimensions of the problem, all of which are relative to some other dimension, otherwise they would be the equivalent of saying, "a bug is the size of a bug." If you have no 'yardstick' of birth and death, time, and thereby thought, is impossible.

---

The major flaw in your reasoning here, though, I believe, is trying to comprehend the incomprehensible. A little like a scientist trying to understand what the conditions were before the 'big bang'.

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

Pectus Pectoris Memor

But, I stand by my word that babies think. They are constantly trying to figure out the environment around them, which is so new and strange. Imagine not knowing which muscles to contract to make your hand touch your face, or even knowing what a hand or face is. Or even not being sure what constitutes "you". I digress, as I'm moving away from topic.

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

---

Yes, it does. It thinks more than it probably ever will again in its life. It has a minute 'yardstick' of the instant it was capable of comprehensive thought. It may seem chaotic, but thought is abound.

---

But that still does not limit God's ability to recognize the passage of time. It may not mean much to Him but it doesn't say that He can't measure it.

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

Pectus Pectoris Memor