I am God.

Yes, my name is Josh. I was referring to myself. "On a molecular level, however, there are indeed separations between the keyboard and, for example, the air particles surrounding it. While these separations are not distinct, these separations are determined by the distance between the particles, as well as the different kind of particles." "In any case, Pro avoids answering the question of omnipresence in this paragraph." This is a way of examining the world by observing patterns. We can distinguish between objects only by observing such patterns; though, even when one examines differences in particles, one can presumably go even deeper, and examine what these particles are made of, and so on, either never finding the primordial "stuff" which we are made of, or doing so. Either way, what "I" am is an arbitrary label that has almost nothing to do with such patterns. I can reasonably be considered to be my mind, my body - excluding perhaps the air in my lungs, until it is absorbed, and maybe bacteria in my digestive system and even on my skin - or the whole of all of these things. See, without my heart, I cannot exist, so it is a part of me. Without the bacteria in my digestive system, I cannot exist, so it is a part of me. Without the sun, I cannot exist. One would argue that it isn't a part of me because I am physically separate from it. This is so clearly an arbitrary label, however, as I am just as physically separate from my heart as I am the rest of the world. Furthermore, where do the borders of the sun lay? In where we visibly see them? What if we looked at it through infrared vision? What if we just go by where we can feel it? One doesn't have to examine deeper the labels of physical borders to see that they are arbitrary. And this means I am omnipresent. My body implies the whole of my environment. I cannot exist without the air, and the air cannot exist in the way it does without the earth, and this cannot be without the sun, the sun without the space around it, etc. etc. On top of this, everything cannot exist without it's opposite, nothing. "If he was omnipresent and needed to use a physical form to use the keyboard, he would end up taking up all space in the known and unknown universe in doing so." Yes, that's what I'm doing. This body doesn't take up the space; rather, "I" do. As for omniscience, you could say I know so much that I know what it's like to know very little. That's what I'm doing right now. I actually know everything there is to be known, as what I am is inseparable from what the universe is; I know the whole of the sun because I AM the whole of the sun - and there is no better knowing than being. And you cannot say that the universe isn't self-aware. I cannot say that it is self-aware with any real conviction, but I could reason that just as my body, a collection of cells which, surely, by your logic, are physically separate, are self-aware, so may be the entirety of the Earth, or the galaxy, and so on. After all, the distances between stars and different sub-atomic particles, as far as we know, look very similar scale-wise. When it comes to omnipotence, your argument is very effective at dispelling any such thing in human terms. See, what I am is ultimately the whole, everything that is and isn't. This doesn't mean there is nothing within the universe that calls itself self. We are such things. But we must be a self to call ourselves self, and at the same time must call ourselves self in order to be a self. This seems like a paradox, but there is no such thing in reality. Both things arise at the same time, and just as naturally as you beat your heart, and as flowers grow. I am DOING me, and cannot lift a large boulder. At the same time, I am DOING the universe, and have created such a boulder. I am both things. You think this is impossible because you are so set in what you call yourself. You are a wave in the ocean that believes itself separate. You think that I cannot be and not be at the same time. But I am everything, including superman, which exists only in our minds. I am also that which was never conceived. I am absolutely nothing, because I am all "things" including nothing. And as I am doing myself in every conceivable way, I am doing absolutely everything and nothing, and thus am omnipotent. Do you consider your conscious and unconscious as parts of you? If so, why do you only know one of these? Why not the other, the one you call unconscious? Children often ask similar questions regarding who they are. Why am I not you? Under what stroke of chance did I become me and not you? Clearly we are separate, because that's how we feel. Clearly I'm God, because that's how I feel. :P See, there cannot be a me without a you. As the universe, if I want to do self, I have to do "other" in order to know what self is. It is impossible for the universe as a whole to know other, other than by doing "me." So, in a way, the universe isn't capable of all things - it isn't capable of manifesting without comparisons, and therefore by defenition isn't omnipotent. So, yes, there is a little hiccup in my definition of God. I hope you agree this doesn't diminish the awesomeness of the universe's possibilities.