It is obvious that you assume too much and you conclude too much from what you read.
Of course none of that is true. Don't be ridiculous, silly bear!
You know know of cellular activity because of science (from your link on life's process where you tried to avoid defining what you meant). You then tried to use the knowledge gained from science in an argument arguing for an unscientific view. Your conclusion would undermine the evidence used to get to your conclusion. It doesn't logically work.
Besides that, it is a fact that there is an obvious difference between a living creature and something inanimate, but that difference only describes a living organism, it does not explain nor does it invalidate "an unscientific view" of what life is and what animates a living creature, as the "Bible" explains, which is also in the context of this thread. This topic is about what the Bible says, in terms of the Bible and not in terms of the scientific process (method).
Describe the obvious difference, please, upon which you base this statement. Specifically, the thread is about the illogic of the Bible. No one in the OP set the terms you describe, nor are you able to set them. You chose to discuss life, you don't now get to try to avoid the conversation by making up non-existent requirements for posting in this thread. It may be helpful for you to review this thread:
I have already responded to the OP. I will repeat. According to the Bible, God is not dependent. That means that He does not need a place to exist.
So then he doesn't exist is the inescapable conclusion of that logic. Also, the Bible doesn't say that.