If omnipotence includes being able to commit suicide then if someone is omnipotent then they can commit suicide.

Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he can reincarnate himself too. What would be the point of killing himself, when he can reincarnate?

I feel like I'm stuck in a time loop. Oh well, let's go over this once more. It won't hurt to do so I suppose. Once omnipotence is assumed, nothing is impossible. So, God can commit suicide, he must've already but God isn't dead.

If a being is omnipotent, he can live forever. If he cannot live forever, then he is not omnipotent.
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?

This is just a misguided question, giving too much significance to a word. It is said that there is a being, God, which created the universe and has the power to shape it as he wills. Some might say that he can kill himself and others might say that he can't. Whether you want the term "omnipotence" to include being able to kill oneself or to include being unkillable (even by oneself) or to contradictorily include both is irrelevant.

Whether you want the term "omnipotence" to include being able to kill oneself or to include being unkillable (even by oneself) or to contradictorily include both is irrelevant. — Michael

That was what I was saying above.

Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist? — Corvus

Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist? — Corvus

I don't know what you mean by the definition of "omnipotence" being wrong.

I don't know what you mean by the definition of "omnipotence" being wrong. — Michael

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.

The definition of omnipotence is wrong because that is just a word invented by imagination. — Corvus

Every word is invented by imagination. So what about the word "omnipotence" makes its definition wrong?

Every word is invented by imagination. So what about the word "omnipotence" makes its definition wrong — Michael

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. :)

Some words are invented out of the concrete objects, but some are invented out of indeed pure imagination? Omnipotence is the latter case. — Corvus

So words like "dragon" and "ghost" have 'wrong' definitions?

So words like "dragon" and "ghost" have 'wrong' definitions? — Michael

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 is just a misguided question, giving too much significance to a word. It is said that there is a being, God, which created the universe and has the power to shape it as he wills. Some might say that he can kill himself and others might say that he can't. Whether you want the term "omnipotence" to include being able to kill oneself or to include being unkillable (even by oneself) or to contradictorily include both is irrelevant. — Michael

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.

This is the basis of pandeism: the deity annihilates itself by becoming the universe in order to experience not being the deity. The end of time, maximum universal expansion, "heat death", etc is the deity reborn? Works for me, closes the eternal loop ouroboros-like. If I was in need of such a (minimal) metaphysical extravagance, I'd be a committed pandeist.

It is just a logical argument, not spilling into religion. :)

Pandeism is a religion? Since when?

Sorry, maybe not. Pandeism sounded like some Shamanism religion in Asian countries. I heard that they believe every object has souls and spirits ...etc. Actually I am not familiar with any religion or theism at all. :D

yeah, I suppose if you bring in some other religious God concept, and if the premise is based on that, then the whole argument could become valid, even if the conclusion could be false.

Hmmn, the creator with a death wish.
Creatures are not necessarily on board.

Hmmn, the creator with a death wish.
Creatures are not necessarily on board. — Valentinus

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?

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? — Valentinus

Of course, you cannot experience Omnipotence. No one can.
It is an abstract concept, used by the debaters.

Point taken.
So how do you see it connected to something you care about?

Personally thinking and writing on these topics teach me about basics on Epistemic and Metaphysical logics.

Does it logically follow, that he could even commit suicide? Why or why not? — Corvus

Frustrated by humanity, God committed suicide. :sad: Who can blame him?

Frustrated by humanity, God committed suicide. :sad: Who can blame him? — Pop

If he is an omnipotent being, he can revive himself instantly. :)

If he is an omnipotent being, he can revive himself instantly. :) — Corvus

:up: I'm so glad to hear it!

Since we're talking of God (self-created among other things, right?) and suicide, I would like to lay dowm the following for consideration:

1. Self-destruction (suicide; real & documented).

2. Self-creation (not documented at all; God yes, but real/not is an open question).

Well the question is what constitutes for "impossible" and what constitutes for "omnipotent"?

Can an omnipotent being (if existed) be both dead and alive?

I feel these discussions usually fail to grasp the scope of "omnipotency".
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:

If a being is omnipotent, he can live forever. If he cannot live forever, then he is not omnipotent.
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? — 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.