Logic of Omnipotence and Suicide
If a being was omnipotent, he could do anything, and indeed anything he wants and likes, if that is the definition of being omnipotent means.
Does it logically follow, that he could even commit suicide? Why or why not?
Does it logically follow, that he could even commit suicide? Why or why not?
Comments (136)
If he kills himself, he stops being omnipotent, so it is impossible thing to do. Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist?
That was what I was saying above.
Quoting Corvus
I don't know what you mean by the definition of "omnipotence" being wrong.
The definition of omnipotence is wrong because that is just a word invented by imagination.
But in the real world, there is no such a being with that power.
Every word is invented by imagination. So what about the word "omnipotence" makes its definition wrong?
Hmm... I am not sure, if every word is invented from imagination. Some words are invented out of the concrete objects, but some are invented out of indeed pure imagination? Omnipotence is the latter case.
When one picks up words which has no matching real world object, give that meaning to yet another abstract concepts, and then invent some, what look like logical arguments, engage in the debates with others, and the result is confusion. :)
So words like "dragon" and "ghost" have 'wrong' definitions?
No idea on dragons or ghosts. I personally have never thought about logical definitions of either of them. They are subject to debates and logical investigations, I think, if someone comes up with some logical arguments concerning them.
This "paradox" and all similar ones are knots we like to tie in our language when we have too much time on our hands. As you say - it's words. It has nothing to do with any non-verbal thing. God, if it exists, is not constrained by the limits of our language.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_becomes_the_Universe [1]
Hmmn, the creator with a death wish.
Creatures are not necessarily on board.
We are talking here about the scope of power - omnipotence, what it can do or cannot do in logical sense.
How does that "logical sense" relate to anything I might experience?
We get to see what power does in our lives.What does imagining having an "infinite" amount of the stuff relate to our circumstances?
Of course, you cannot experience Omnipotence. No one can.
It is an abstract concept, used by the debaters.
So how do you see it connected to something you care about?
Frustrated by humanity, God committed suicide. :sad: Who can blame him?
If he is an omnipotent being, he can revive himself instantly. :)
:up: I'm so glad to hear it!
1. Self-destruction (suicide; real & documented).
2. Self-creation (not documented at all; God yes, but real/not is an open question).
Can an omnipotent being (if existed) be both dead and alive?
I don't think we can begin to understand what omnipotency entails, because it would include changing the laws of reality on a whim.
So when saying something along the lines of:
Quoting Corvus
My simple answer is: An omnipotent being could just as easily reside in paradoxical states as it can reside in coherent states. The problem here is that human logic is applied. For an omnipotent being, it makes no difference whether something is possible or impossible - in fact it would be the very thing that decides over such things.
Outwith human logic is the world of imagination, fantasies and conjectures. One can then write poetry, novels, and shoot movies.
I think not because an omnipotent subject has not in their mind the debate or thought of being a worthy value. It is that powerful or superior that the subject itself cannot handle about "human emotions" dilemmas.
A normal human being can be settled in some issues as "is this life that worthy?" or "why I do deserve this?", etc... Which can put you on the fragile of gap of committing suicide.
But in an omnipotent subject these matters cannot even exist because it is already a being/non being... Right?
Omnipotence is a fixed state, so no
Very interesting question. That's why I also defend no because in some terms it looks like omnipotence is related a being/not being state
Or could it be that the word "omnipotence" is an invented terminology from human imagination?
It could be too because we humans tend to imagine things bigger or better than us, paradoxically...
The dispute is over what, more precisely, that involves. Does it involve being able to do all things it is logically possible to do, or does it involve being able to do anything at all, including the currently logically forbidden?
I think the answer to that one is obvious - to be able to do the logically forbidden is to have more power than one who is bound by logic. Thus omnipotence involves it.
But either way, God could commit suicide.
If you want to argue that God cannot commit suicide, then you would need to argue that God exists of necessity. But that claim seems incompatible with being omnipotent.
Omnipotence means the quality of having unlimited or very great power. No problem with very great power, but "unlimited power" is associated with God usually, and creates all sorts of paradoxes when used under the definition.
There's what it means and then there's what problems it might generate. It means 'all powerful'. And, like I say, the debate is over whether being all powerful involves being able to do all things logically possible, or anything whatever.
And again, like I say, neither of those conceptions of omnipotence would generate a problem in respect of suicide. You'd need to argue in addition that God exists of necessity. Then that would mean it would be logically impossible for God to cease to exist.
Quoting Corvus
According to Bartricks definition of omnipotence god can simultaneously kill and not kill himself.
Sure, it's a contradiction, but that's no problem, he can do anything. :smile:
Further, he can simultaneously be and not be god, can simultaneously be and not be omnipotent. No problem.
:smile:
Yes, he 'can' do that. 'Can' doesn't mean 'is'. See? So, it's not an 'actual' contradiction. There are none of those.
Also, what is your objection? Where is the contradiction involved in pointing out that someone who can do anything, can do anything? That's not a contradiction.
Compare this to you. You think that a person who can do anything can't make a rock too heavy to lift. That's an actual contradiction. So if you're so anti contradictions, stop affirming them.
Total nonsense and more evidence that you have no philosophical credentials.
So, you think 'can' does mean 'is'? You 'can' think a little more before posting. But are you? No. See?
God can simultaneously kill and not kill himself?
God can simultaneously be and not be god?
God can simultaneously be and not be omnipotent?
Yes, he 'can' be simultaneously God and not God. But he isn't. He's just God. How do I know? Because the law of non-contradiction is true. The law of non-contradiction says that if a proposition is true, it is not also false. Thus if God is God, he is not also not God. Again: 'can' doesn't mean 'is'. This is something the average 6 year old can grasp.
Can God simultaneously be and not be omnipotent - yes, see above answer.
Can god violate the law of non-contradiction?
Quoting Bartricks
If god has the power to simultaneously kill and not kill himself how can it be known that he hasn't simultaneously killed and not killed himself?
Have you heard of that law? Who first articulated it?
No? Don't know? It states that if a proposition is true, it is not also false. And Aristotle is credited with having first expressed it.
And we know it is true in the same way that we know 1 + 1 = 2 is true - it is manifest to the reason of virtually everyone.
Some doubt it is true - what are they called and can you name one?
Answer the question or shut your mouth, doc:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Answer the question or shut your mouth, doc:
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
So god lacks the power to be simultaneously alive and dead?
So the law of non-contradiction can be violated.
How do you know he isn't exercising it? What evidence can you present?
Well, it wouldn't really be violated. It would simply no longer obtain.
The truth of the law of non-contradiction is evident to reason. That is to say, our reason represents it to be true.
To 'know' something is to have a justified true belief. Justifications are made of normative reasons. And we are aware of normative reasons via our reason.
Why don't you now ask me how I know that, and then to my answer ask 'and how do you know that'. And I can keep giving you the same answer. And we can keep doing that until we die. How about that?
Quoting Bartricks
How do you know god isn't alive and dead simultaneously?
And how can it be known when in this special case the law of non-contradiction has ceased to obtain?
Because I know the law of non-contradiction is true. And if the law of non-contradiction is true, then there is no person who is alive and not alive at the same time. Therefore, God is not alive and dead at the same time.
What is the name of the argument form I just employed above?
If the law of non-contradiction ceases to obtain in light of god's decision to simultaneously kill and not kill himself, how will you know?
Anyway, here's my answer - I may not know of it. If I did, however, it would most likely be either by a rational intuition to that effect, or perhaps I may come to believe that the law of non-contradiction no longer obtains in a manner that God approves of, and that too would then qualify as an item of knowledge.
What a benevolent human being you are.
Aside from the litany of verbal abuse you've wreaked on your forum neighbors.
What a nice bully you are.
Quoting Bartricks
So it might have happened long ago.
All done here.
Take care.
Yes. It hasn't though. We're going around in circles and it is entirely your fault.
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Don't hand it out if you can't take it.
Note too that I have all along been arguing things, whereas all you've been doing is asking questions you don't care to understand the answer to.
God can do anything - that's what being omnipotent involves. And as God can do anything, he can kill himself. Even someone who thinks God is bound by the law of non-contradiction can agree to that. You have provided precisely no reason - no philosophical defence - of your scepticism about this. All you have done is express your view that I am a preposterous person because I am saying things you don't immediately understand and lack the humility to think that may reflect a failing in you and not your interlocutor.
Your abuse doesn't bother me because I know your heart: you're a pompous, ignorant bully.
I abuse you because you're a bully. Good night.
No, you started it with this: Quoting ZzzoneiroCosm
Until that point I was simply arguing a point, albeit robustly. But those who are no good at philosophy are, in my experience, incapable of taking criticism of their views as anything other than personal attacks (and thus think it fine to make a personal attack in reply).
I love it when someone attacks my views and love it if the attack is a good one. Love it. You might want to try it some day. Attack the view, not the person.
Sorry. Not interested. You're a bully and I'm only interested in abusing you.
And you're bad at that too. Which is a shame - I like a good insult almost as much as I like a good criticism.
I never give up, so once more: suicide would only be ruled out for God if God exists of necessity. Yet if God exists of necessity, then he will lack an ability that even we seem to have, namely the ability to cease to exist. Manifestly someone who lacks an ability that the rest of us have cannot at the same time be omnipotent. Thus, God does not exist of necessity and thus God can commit suicide. And that's true regardless of whether God is constrained by the laws of logic or the author of them.
That's evident.
Insults - it's true of any art - require - practice, practice, practice - and you are - pondscum narcissus - concertmaster.
Enjoy the darkness you have created.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On a final, devilishly friendlier note: read more broadly and more skeptically. Your trust in yourself is misplaced.
Take care.
So yeah, power does allow one to defy logic(al aws). God, being a king (of the kingdom of heaven), it is his prerogative to both obey AND disobey the laws of logic. In other words, reasoning with God is to ask for the impossible.
Throughout the history of philosophy, there has been two primary approaches to a more formal and technical understanding of (i.e. philosophical) omnipotence as depicted in theology.
These two approaches are the Thomistic approach & the Cartesian approach, respectively after Aquinas and Descartes.
Keep in mind that these interpretations are tools, and so it is not necessary that one interpretation is correct and the other isn't, rather, they're done such that philosophers can interact with this concept, and different religious faiths may see omnipotence in different ways. In other words, the "correct" interpretation is indexical to the theology at hand.
But regardless, there's another distinction that's important here, and it's whether there can be an omnipotent being such that its omnipotence is accidental to itself. In these cases, presumably, that being can survive removing its omnipotence, because its omnipotence is not an essential component of its identity.
However, in the cases of an essential omnipotent, to remove its omnipotence is to remove its essence and effectively kill itself. Notice that both the Thomistic & Cartesian interpretations of omnipotence (without God inserted) wouldn't confine this because no logical contradiction is explicitly evident. The issue is that Thomists argue that accidental omnipotence isn't a thing, and that omnipotence can only possibly be true of God, such that God is also necessary. This is because Thomists commit to a doctrine known as divine simplicity (DDS) that makes it so God is atomically simple and has no proper parts. What this entails is that all of God's attributes (omniscience, omnipotence, necessity, etc) are actually one attribute and it's simply our mind that fails to capture this unity when thinking about God.
So given DDS, there isn't such a thing as omniscient but not omnipotent, or omnipotent but not necessary. To say there's an omnipotent being is to also say there's an omniscient, necessary, etc being because all of these attributes in our language are different intensions that fixate the same extension. The interesting part about this is that since necessity is true of this being, then its non-existence would be a logical contradiction, so it can neither remove its omnipotence nor kill itself (a Thomist would say both of these are the same thing!)
However, while a Cartesian may admit of DDS, and may even come to agree with the Thomist that this self-destruction is actually a contradiction, a Cartesian would say an omnipotent can still bring it about because it is not bound by any laws of logic. The stark point of contention in the theology here is that a Cartesian may be inclined to see logic as something that might "rule over omnipotence," whereas Thomists understand logic itself as a result of the orderly & rational nature of that being which is omnipotent.
So ultimately, it depends on the type of omnipotence you're using. To a Thomist, no, but to a Cartesian, yes.
Hope this answers your question.
The problem with the idea of omnipotence is that there are many contradictory scenarios which must co-exist with each other, so that omnipotent being must have experienced everything including resurection after death. As everything is possible, there is no impossible so everything can be done, which means things can be undone.
You call other posters idiots but you've changed your own views from discussions here. You now say God can't both exist and not exist, contradicting previous idiotic statements by you in the past. Live and learn
This then provides a motive for creation. If God contains the potential for all else, and if he loves himself, then it makes sense that he'd want to create everything that could possibly exist out of his self-love. If every existing thing is a partial manifestation of the infinite God trying to manifest himself, then you would predict a very big and very old universe (or possibly infinite multiverses).
If it were possible for God to add to himself, I would think he would probably do that. But if he's infinite, that might not be possible. It might be the case that infinity + 1 = infinity. According to Christian theology, there is no difference at all between the Father and the Son except that the Son is "begotten". If it's possible for God to "beget" a son, then it might not be possible for God to "beget" two sons, because they would actually be identical (the same being). And then they also teach that the Holy Spirit "proceeds", but I'm not sure what the difference is. Anyway, if God loved himself, and if it were possible for him to make more Gods like himself, then you'd expect something like the Trinity. Then all the rest of creation is necessarily finite and imperfect, because otherwise it would be literally impossible for God to create it.
Yes, you are right, and even further, God could actually totally cease to exist and just make himself exist again if we ascribe to him powers beyond what is logically possible. He could also take away his own omnipotence and kill himself and still exist; a God like the kind you describe can do all kinds of neat things. Like square a circle or generally make two logically contradictory things true at the same time, although that last one could go unnoticed by humans quite easily.
But what if he sequesters his omniscience with his omnipotence? He would presumably be able to regain his omniscience with his undiminished omnipotence, but how would he know to do so, especially if he gave himself artificial memories or something? What if he had gone even further and created a device that would reset his own mental state or jam his powers whenever there is a chance that he might discover the truth or act in a way requiring omnipotence? If he could locate or find knowledge of this device, which would presumably have been created before he lost his omniscience, he might be able to escape this self-inflicted fate, but that might include wandering the universe almost forever.
[I]Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he must reincarnate himself too.
When you say "he must", it implies he is under obligation or duty to do something. Being omnipotent, God is under no such limitation. "he can reincarnate himself" implies God has Free Will to please himself in deciding or acting.
If God can reincarnate himself, then it implies that his body is not the biological body like humans. Because no biological body can be reincarnated in the same body when died and perished from the world.
Oops. Typo. Matt = not.
My point is that just because said omnipotent being can arrange to be reincarnated doesn't mean they must.
What philosophical problem is that answer supposed to raise? I am not yet seeing it.
There are many possible questions emanating from the statement relating to God's power and existence, which are theological and logical paradox in nature. But if you are coming from the Humean vulgar state of mind, of course, there is nothing visible or problematic here.
For example, one could start with a question, if God really existed. If so, what kind of existence it would be. This question alone could take thousands of pages for discussion. And further ensuing questions and debates on all the paradoxes of self killing possibilities, or impossibilities and resurrection debates ... etc it could be quite a large topic.
But obviously it is not an interest to your type of philosophy, and you are not seeing anything in the topic. That is perfectly fine, and natural. Thanks for making clear on your stance of the state of your mind.
If I say that I am sat in a chair, that is not philosophically interesting. No puzzle that needs resolving is raised.
An omnipotent person can - has the ability to - commit suicide. What puzzle does that raise? Is there any reason to think God lacks that ability? If there is no reason to think God lacks that ability, then what puzzle is there? If there is reason to think God lacks it, what is that reason?
I don't see why an omnipotent being couldn't commit suicide. I agree, there's no puzzle.
I disagree with the assertions that an omnipotent being can do paradoxical or logically impossible things. I don't know why that would be. Perhaps this being could create a reality in which a square circle is not a contradiction, although I don't know what such a reality would be like. Similar enough to our own that such concepts exist, but where they can both be embodied in one item? I'm skeptical.
But no amount of power can make such a thing in our reality.
The OP is not asking about an omnipotent person, but omnipotent God. The first puzzle is what type of existence God has. If God has biological bodily existence like humans, then perhaps self killing is possible.
But if the existence of God is non-bodily existence such as force or spirit, then self killing would be impossible, because force and spirit is outside of the boundary of physical death.
So I would have thought, you could have started discussing the nature and type of existence of God.
Quoting Clearbury
How can one kill someone who is omnipotent? Omnipotence means that it is powerful to win, resist or make anything possible. If omnipotent being could be killed either by itself or others, then it means that the omnipotent being was not omnipotent, hence it is a paradox to believe that omnipotent being could kill itself.
Quoting Clearbury
There was nothing in this thread saying you have sat in a chair. Can we say that God exist? If it does, in what form does it exist? Which God are we talking about? What is the concept of omnipotence? Is it a logically sound concept? Or is it just a religious myth?
Quoting CorvusI imagine killing an omnipotent being would be more than somewhat difficulty. I don't know why an omnipotent being couldn't kill itself.
These things seem to be axioms of your position. But I don't think they are valid.
You made your counter claims on the assumptions, but you have not given out any logical or evidential arguments on why your claims are valid, and my assumptions are invalid.
Remember this is The Philosophy Forum. We are not into making emotional claims saying you just don't think they are not valid with no reasons, no logic and no evidence supporting your claim. Doing so would be just opening up your psychological state.
In essence, that's what I just said to you. You are making claims without logical or evidential support. What evidence is there that an omnipotent being cannot commit suicide? What evidence is there that only physical beings can die?
But you just claimed that my assumptions are invalid out of the blue - no reason, no logic, no evidence and no argument. You just think the assumptions are invalid. Please read your own posts.
Your assumptions are just assumptions. If you support them, I might be swayed. Or I might not be swayed, and might offer a counter argument.
But if you don't support them, there is no conversation regarding them to be had.
Assumption are made for further reasoning and inference possibilities. Assumptions are not for claiming my ideas or converting people's ideas.
You are perfectly welcome to say the assumptions are invalid, but you must supply the reasons and evidence why they are invalid.
The assumptions were not claiming anything was valid or invalid. They were just assumptions. Whereas you made claims that you think the assumptions were invalid.
In other words, we have not even gone down to have detailed arguments to come to the conclusions, but you made the claim that the assumptions are invalid in haste without the supporting arguments.
Quoting CorvusCan you clarify this? I don't know why an omnipotent being could not kill itself. If its idea of "winning" is no longer existing, could it not make that possible?
Quoting Patterner
As I said repeatedly, they are the assumptions which could be analysed and clarified by arguments. They are not the final concluding claims.
If you claim that they are not valid, then you must write down the reasons why you think they are not valid in logical manner, and then I will come back to you with my thoughts on your arguments.
Yes. I now understand they are not your concluding claims. They are assumptions. I'm asking if you can support or clarify your assumptions.
I am not saying they are invalid. I have not used that word in several posts. I have backed things up. I am asking if you can support or clarify these assumptions. I don't understand why you are assuming these things. Can you help me understand why you are assuming them?
Anyway, you don't seem to understand what assumption means. Why should assumption be supported or clarified? Assumptions are made so they could be verified to be either right or wrong.
I am in a position to claim either the assumptions could be right or wrong myself at the assuming stage. I would be there to see what other people say about it, before I could make up my my mind on the points.
If you tell us why those points are invalid, then I would tell my thoughts on your points. I could agree with your points, or I may disagree with your points. But right now I don't know the reasons why you think the points are invalid, because you never made clear here.
Quoting CorvusOk, they are not to be clarified, they are to be verified. How do you propose to verify whether they are right or wrong? What is the method of achieving verification? Would it involve saying why you make these assumptions? Or saying anything whatsoever beyond making the original statements? Or is stating the assumptions the beginning and end of the verification process?
Ok cool :up:
Quoting Patterner
According to my logic book, you can make any assumptions in proof so long as they are relevant and within the context, and would help coming to the sound conclusion.
I only offered my assumption to the question from @clearbury. He thinks there is no puzzles in the OP's point. I thought there were many philosophical paradox points in the OP.
My point was when we say God's omnipotence, is it a valid concept to begin with? We want to find out what the concept of God means. It naturally proceeds to the question if God exists. We cannot know if God exists, without knowing what God means and also what existence means.
But then is God in bodily existence just like humans? No, my reasoning tells me it isn't. If God was a biological bodily existence, then s/he will get old and die just like humans. That couldn't be God. Then what existence God has? Could it be then some type of existence of Force or Spirit? That was my assumption, which you thought was invalid.
At that point, it is too premature to say it is either valid or invalid. We need further discussion for coming to clearer idea on the point.
However, stipulating a hypothesized omnipotent being is not in human form, but is "force and spirit," I am not aware of a reason this being would not be able to die. Or, if this being cannot be said to be "alive" in the first place, but exists, then I am not aware of a reason this being cannot cease to exist. Are you?
The ancient Egyptian God was the Sun. Sun was the source of life, and energy which made all life in the world possible. Sun is also vital for growing the plantation to feed the cattle and humans which are the food sources.
When God is the Sun, what you get is the light from God, and even from a modern scientific point of view, the Earth rotates around the Sun because of the gravity between the 2 stars pulling and being pulled. Without the force of the gravity from the Sun, the Earth will go out of its orbit, and fly away into space to its apocalyptic destruction with all the lives on it. Hence, to the ancient Egyptians, the Sun as their God meant it was the light and force the Sun sends to the Earth. Therefore the Sun as their God was quite reasonable even from scientific point of view.
From this perspective, God could be a force, which was omnipotent. The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence. Could it kill itself? How can it kill itself, when it is impossible to be killed?
I agree. Therefore it is quite meaningless to keep on talking about God without clarifying which God one is talking about. First, we need to make clear which God we are talking about, and then what type of existence the God has, before going on to talking about the other properties of God.
My above posts were some inferences I made based on the ancient Egyptian God Sun. It is not my own claim just in case you might demand me to clarify or prove it. :)
In the case of Christianity, the story is different. The only thing you have is the bible, and the holy texts in it. Nothing else. In the bible, it says God made humans into the God's own image. But we have never seen the God. So he must look like humans, but exact how he looks like, no one has a clue.
No one knows where he lives or what he does for his living. No one knows if he is a living being or some force or energy or indeed spirit. It is veiled in mystery.
He supposedly have sent Jesus into the world to savior folks, but not sure if it is a real story or myth. Why did he not come down himself instead of sending Jesus who had to go through tremendous suffering in the world at the time? Jesus supposed to have resurrected after his death, but no one knows where he resides and what he is doing.
In this situation, I am wondering if there is a point to ask if the Christian God is even omnipotent. The bible says he is the almighty God, and he has demonstrated some miraculous events in the bible, but do you have any evidence to support that story?
Quoting CorvusBeing omnipotent, I would think the being could assume any type of existence it wanted, at any time it wanted, and still be able to do whatever it wanted at any moment. Assume the form of a grain of sand for a million years. Then human form for a billion. Then the form of a cluster of galaxies for a few minutes. Then a solar flare. A rainstorm. On and on. I would think the important aspect of the being at all times, regardless of the form it assumes, is it's omnipotence.
Quoting CorvusI do not. Nor do I believe that story actually took place. I also don't believe the Marvel story of the Beyonder.
That misses the point somewhat! There's no puzzle. There's nothing to discuss.
God is by definition an omnipotent person. So 'of course' they have the ability to kill themselves. Why would you think they don't?
No it is not. It is an analogy or inference based on the ancient Egyptian God which is the Sun.
If we could make another analogy on the Sun and force and light, it is burning itself radiating the light and hot temperature for the lives on the Earth. The Sun's burning will not last forever, and one day it will die according to the scientific forecast. Maybe it will take billions of more years for the Sun to die off completely, but it could be looked as killing itself?
Quoting Patterner
Omnipotence is just one of the alleged properties of God, and before we could discuss about omnipotence, it would be clearer, if you let me know which God you are talking about, and what type of existence your God has.
I am not quite sure what you are talking about here. Perhaps if you could let me know which God you are talking about, and also the nature of the existence of your God, it would help in understanding you better.
What exactly would the being be without being God?
I guess it depends on your definition of God. But I'm not talking about that. I'm taking about whether or not an omnipotent being can commit suicide. I don't see why it would not be possible.
What I want to know is what philosophical problem the ability of God to commit suicide raises? Do you think an omnipotent person can't commit suicide? That seems conceptually confused, for how could they qualify as omnipotent if there is something they cannot do? (It is sometimes held that God cannot do things that involve a contradiction. But this isn't one of those).
Is the thought that doing it is incompatible with being morally perfect? That doesn't generate a puzzle either as it is only the 'ability' that we are talking about, and even if it is wrong to commit suicide, that only implies that God won't do it, not that he can't.
So I just don't see a puzzle of any kind here. i think it is now on you to explain why you think there is one and what it is.
If you 'define' God as 'someone who can't commit suicide' then you haven't raised a puzzle either, for then 'by definition' God can't commit suicide and the question was like "are squares four sided?"
I still don't know who your omnipotent being is, you are talking about. And it seems clear that you don't know who you are talking about either.
You seem to be talking about an omnipotent being which doesn't exist. If something is non-existent, then it cannot be omnipotent, therefore you are barking at the wrong tree for non-existing answers.
If a being is omnipotent, then the being cannot die. If being can die, then it is not an omnipotent being. Therefore you are talking nonsense here.
This seems to be the problem in your thinking, which is leading you to the faulty reasoning. You are equating God with a person. They cannot be the same. God and person are not the same being or class. No person is omnipotent from inductive reasoning. Only some God can be omnipotent.
If there was such a being, would I have any justification for thinking there are limits to what it can do, or what forms it could take?
But there are the traditional deities such as the Christian God, the ancient Egyptian deities and the other Gods which we could have some clues from the existing holy texts and theologies, which we could make more reasonable inference and analogies.
Talking about a non-existing hypothetical being with omnipotence is not really going to take you anywhere. You would have far better ways wasting your time.
That is my logical inference. If you think it is not correct, then prove it wrong.
If a being is omnipotent, then it cannot die.
If it can die, then it is not an omnipotent being.
Therefore, an omnipotent being cannot kill itself.
But your hypothetical or hypothesized ideas are too subjective and cloud catching story, I cannot even imagine what you are even talking about. We need some kind of objective ground to engage in the argument. That means you must come up with your premises for the argument and conclusion, which could be accepted by the other interlocutors in the discussion.
I am not able to accept your premises, that we could talk about an omnipotent being which doesn't exist in the world. I don't know who we are talking about.
You must come up with at least some premises which are objective i.e. omnipotent being(s) as God in the traditional religions, which we know of in their properties of the deities.
It is not my interest in only discussing the traditional religious God in the OP. The OP started with no prejudice that omnipotent being can be only Gods. It started with the assumption that there might be a non-God being which is omnipotent. However during the discussion and logical inference, it was clear to conclude that it was nonsense to talk about such a being which is omnipotent which is not God, because by inductive reasoning there is no such being exists.
That's both rude and untrue.
You don't seem to know what 'omnipotent' means. it means 'all powerful'. It doesn't mean 'unable to die' . I am repeating myself, but you seem to be having difficulty grasping the point, despite it being quite straightforward. If an omnipotent person is 'unable' to do something, then they're not omnipotent. So you are the one who is demonstrably talking nonsense, as it is not in dispute that contradictions are nonsense and in asserting that an omnipotent person is unable to die you are asserting a contradiction.
That seems conceptually confused on your part. God is by definition a person. If you're using the term 'God' as a label for a mindless object or something then you're just misusing the term. I think someone who misuses terms like that - or happily changes what they mean by a term whenever convenient - isn't worth debating with as it would just take too long to nail down what they're talking about.
That is exactly why I felt you have been talking nonsense. It seemed that there was no progress in the debate, because you kept coming back with the same denial of whatever I said. There was no coherence or cogency in your statements at all. But your point seems to be that whatever I said, I am wrong, and you are right.
Omnipotence is a paradoxical concept. In the real world, there is no such person who is omnipotent.
Therefore if a being is omnipotent, it must be a divine being. That is a inductive logical statement.
Divine being doesn't die. If it dies, then it is not a divine being. Therefore divine being wouldn't be able to kill himself. When the being knows he cannot die, he wouldn't kill himself.
I don't agree that God is a person. I have never heard anyone saying God is a person. Can you prove God is a person?
Just because I don't agree with your point, you claim that you don't want to carry on debating sounds absurd and senseless.
Then you need to get out more (and maybe consult a dictionary while you're at it). It's what the term means. If you're using 'God' to refer to a brand of beetroot then you're just being misleading and tedious. Anyway, I'm not debating with you anymore as it's clearly not going to be worth the effort, plus you were needlessly rude.
If you keep beating around the bush just trying to tell the same nonsense, then everyone would say to you, stop telling nonsense. That doesn't mean you are a nonsense, but what you were saying was nonsense.