One of the most propounded arguments "in favour" of god is that used to "explain" the origin of life 1.
After all, they say, life MUST come from life.
(Admitted that's all we've actually observed - so far).
Therefore, the argument goes, life didn't "just happen" and it wasn't "dead chemicals", it must have been god.
So, that would mean that, of necessity, god is alive, no?
Does god, in any of his supposed forms match this description?
Wiki says:
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Um, god sweats?
Then again, he probably has other methods of self-regulation.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that god is composed of cells, but the majority of "descriptions" do imply some sort of organisation - after all he's (she's, whatever) a coherent, structured entity.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Ah, here we fall down. The Christian god, at least, does not have a metabolism. Otherwise there'd have to have been something as well as god "before" he created the universe.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Another pitfall. If god is, as claimed, perfect then why would he grow? How would he grow? There's no "evidence" of him ingesting anything.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
Slightly trickier. Does god "adapt"? Being perfect would preclude that, adaptation would imply switching away from perfection. Presumably there's no process of evolution here, and none of his characteristics are hereditary.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Yep, he's got this one. Although, given his omniscience is it actually a response?
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
Also a sticky wicket. Granted he (supposedly) did reproduce, just the once, but it wasn't with "another" god and it was, again, supposedly, for the specific purpose of creating a tool for one particular job - i.e. not reproduction as generally accepted. And also the question arises, was Jesus initiated sexually?
Hmm, problems.
Let's try a different definition: RRREGNTS.
R- Respiration
No. As mentioned.
R- Regulation
Probably.
R- Reproduction
No. As mentioned.
E- Excretion
No. As mentioned.
G- Growth
No. As mentioned.
N- Nutrition
No. As mentioned.
T- Transport
No. As mentioned.
S- Synthesis
No. As mentioned.
In short: by the "definitions" given by religion god himself isn't alive.
Which means that their own argument against abiogenesis applies equally to their argument in favour of god as the cause of life.
1 I put "explanation" in quote marks because "goddidit" is no more a useful explanation than is "Tuesday".