Someone is paradise and very rich wish to live. Supreme power lead there.

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?

To my understanding you are distorting the fact. I was only making assumptions and inviting the prospective interlocutors to contribute their own logical arguments. I was not claiming anything at all.

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.

you must supply the reason why they are invalid. — Corvus

You need not supply the reason why your statements are valid in the first place, but I must supply the reason why they are not?

You need not supply the reason why your statements are valid in the first place, but I must supply the reason why they are not? — Patterner

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.

force and spirit is outside of the boundary of physical death. — Corvus

Can you support this? I an not familiar enough with beings of force and spirit to know why they cannot die/cease to be.

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 — Corvus

Can 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?

Can you support this? I an not familiar enough with beings of force and spirit to know why they cannot die/cease to be. — Patterner

Can 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? — 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.

You have not given any reasons why they are invalid, so I am not sure what point are invalid. You just think they are invalid doesn't mean anything to me.

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?

You definitely said they are invalid. Hence this talking is going on now.
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.

You definitely said they are invalid. Hence this talking is going on now. — Corvus

Yes, I did. I am no longer saying they are invalid, and have not said it in several posts. Can we move on?

Why should assumption be supported or clarified? Assumptions are made so they could be either verified to be right or wrong. — Corvus

Ok, 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?

Yes, I did. I am no longer saying they are invalid, and have not said it in several posts. Can we move on? — Patterner

Ok cool :up:

How do you propose to verify whether they are right or wrong? What is the method of achieving verification? — 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.

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. — Corvus

I would say this depends on the particular belief system. For example, the Bible says man was made in God's image, and that Adam and Eve hid when they heard the sound of God walking in the Garden. So it is possible some people believe God was in human form. In Marvel comics, the omnipotent being known as the Beyonder put himself in human form. I don't know of a reason an omnipotent being could not be in human form. Do you?

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?

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? — Patterner

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 would say this depends on the particular belief system. — Patterner

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.

For example, the Bible says man was made in God's image, and that Adam and Eve hid when they heard the sound of God walking in the Garden. So it is possible some people believe God was in human form. In Marvel comics, the omnipotent being known as the Beyonder put himself in human form. I don't know of a reason an omnipotent being could not be in human form. Do you? — Patterner

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?

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? — Corvus

Is the statement "The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence" an established fact? Perhaps a natural law? If so, I would be interested in hearing about it.

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. — Corvus

Being 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.

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? — Corvus

I do not. Nor do I believe that story actually took place. I also don't believe the Marvel story of the Beyonder.

There was nothing in this thread saying you have sat in a chair. — Corvus

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?

Is the statement "The force cannot be killed, because it is not a biological bodily existence" an established fact? Perhaps a natural law? If so, I would be interested in hearing about it. — Patterner

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?

I would think the important aspect of the being at all times, regardless of the form it assumes, is it's omnipotence. — 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.

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? — Clearbury

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.

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. — Corvus

I am not talking about any God/god/deity at all. I am speaking about a hypothetical omnipotent being.

I am not talking about any God/god/deity at all. I am speaking about a hypothetical omnipotent being. — Patterner

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.

I take 'God' to mean a person who has the three omni properties (omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence).

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 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. — Patterner

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 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?" — Clearbury

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.

I take 'God' to mean a person who has the three omni properties (omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenevolence). — Clearbury

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.