So then it seems an omnipotent being can cause themselves to lose their omnipotence, and that doesn't contradict their nature of being omnipotent? — Jerry

Yes. If they were unable to stop being omnipotent, then they would not be omnipotent.

Being able to do something does not mean one has done it.

This: " there is an omnipotent being and there is a rock he can't lift" is a contradiction

This "an omnipotent being is able to create a rock he cannot lift" is not.

This too is a contradiction "there is an omnipotent being and there is something he can't do".

Indeed, if you recognize that this is a contradiction - " there is an omnipotent being and there is a rock he can't lift" - then you should recognize that its contradictory nature lies the fact that the situation described is one in which an omnipotent being is unable to do something.

It's all very confusing, — Jerry

It isn't at all confusing. It's very easy to understand.

An omnipotent being is a person who is able to do anything.

So, to the question "is an omnipotent person able to....." the answer is 'yes' no matter what.

I think a useful definition would be a being that can make anything possible, actual. — Jerry

No, that is not omnipotence. Why? Because it is a contradiction to suppose that a person with fewer powers than another is the more powerful.

A person who is bound by what is currently possible, is a person who is less powerful than a person who is not bound by what is currently possible.

So, an omnipotent being will a person who can make anything possible. Not just 'can make anything that is possible, actual' but 'can make anything possible' .....and then actualize it if they so wish.

You can, if you want, just insist that you want to use the word omnipotent to label a person who is unable to do some things, but then you will simply be using the term different to how I do and will not be engaging with the OP.
In the OP I am wondering whether it is possible that I am able to do anything. I am not wondering whether I am able to do some things and not others.

I'd like to refer you back to my initial questions of whether an omnipotent being has to always be omnipotent or if they can be omnipotent without actual doing actions that make them lose their omnipotence. — Jerry

I have given the answer several times now: an omnipotent being can do anything and thus has the power to cease to be omnipotent.

Again: an omnipotent person is able to be cease to be omnipotent.

Why?

Because they're omnipotent!

Once more: if you can't do something, you're not omnipotent. Yes? So the idea of an omnipotent being who is unable to stop being omnipotent is a contradiction. It is no less contradictory than the idea of a square circle.

So of course - i mean, it is blindingly obvious - an omnipotent being can stop being omnipotent. They can do anything!

We can now return to the question: can I rule out that I am omnipotent?

Hmm. Your omnipotence explains the many contradictions in your posts.

Identify one contradiction, mortal

That's the point. Any contradictions would only support your thesis.

Presumably, for example, you can be both god and not god.

No. They would demonstrate it to be false. So identify a contradiction in something I have said

But since, as god, you can do anything, you can decide which contradictions are not contradictions, and which are. SO there's no point in your asking me to identify any contradictions.

Any argument can be rendered valid by the will of god.

To suppose otherwise would be to limit god's omnipotence...

I think what you mean is that there are no contradictions contained in anything I said.

If you are god, as you supposed in your OP, and if god can will anything, including apparent contradictions, then whether there are any contradictions is entirely up to you.

To suppose otherwise would be to place a restriction on god's omnipotence.

You said that there were actual contradictions contained in what I said. I have asked you to show me them. You haven't. I think that's because there aren't any.

If you are god, as you supposed in your OP, and if god can will anything, including apparent contradictions, then whether there are any contradictions is entirely up to you. — Banno

I am not supposing I actually am God. I am just wondering if I can entirely discount the possibility. I do not think any contradictions are true. So, if I am God, then there will be no true contradictions.

That God can make contradictions true does not seem relevant, as I myself think there are no true contradictions.

I think that's because there aren't any. — Bartricks

Well, if you say so.

I am not supposing I actually am God. — Bartricks

Really?

Really? — Banno

Yes, I am asking whether I can discount the possibility. In the OP I said very clearly that I do not believe I am God and that I take the idea to be a very unreasonable one.

Goodness.

But you agree that any argument can be rendered valid by the will of god?

Saying otherwise would limit god's omnipotence, no?

Yes, you know full well that I do.

An omnipotent being can do anything and so an omnipotent being has the ability to make any argument valid. For an argument to be valid is no more or less than for God to instruct us to take its conclusion to be true if the premises are.

And your task is to discount the possibility that you are god? To show via some argument that you are not god?

It is to show that there is an actual contradiction involved in the idea.

Remember: I don't think any contradictions are true.

So either you are god, or you are not god.

If you are not god, we don't need to show a contradiction in order to show that you are not god.

If you are indeed god, them since the validity of any argument depends on what you will, whether an argument shows you to be god or not depends only on what you will.

So either you re god, or you are not god. — Banno

Yes.

If you are not god, we don't need to show a contradiction in order to show that you are not god. — Banno

To 'show' it you do. I am wondering if I can be shown not to be God by the idea of me being God being shown to be one that contains a contradiction. That's what I am wondering: does the idea of me being God contain a contradiction?

If you are indeed god, them since the validity of any argument depends on what you will, whether an argument shows you to be god or not depends only on what you will. — Banno

Yes, and I think that if a contradiction is involved in the idea of me being God, then I am not God. Forget God for a moment: I think contradictions are not true. I don't think they're true and not true. I think they're not true.

I am wondering if I can be shown not to be God by the idea of me being God being shown to be one that contains a contradiction. — Bartricks

But you could be god and will that the idea of your being god contains a contradiction.

So if you are god, then an argument showing that you are not god does not show that you are not god. You could will that there are arguments showing that you are not god. Suggesting otherwise is placing limits on god's omnipotence.

I think that if a contradiction is involved in the idea of me being God, then I am not God. — Bartricks

Similarly, if you are god you might will a contradiction in the idea that you are god; so the conclusion that you are not god would not follow.

, couldn't you just make the proposition knowable?

I don't believe there are true contradictions. I know that as certainly as I know anything. So, if I am God then there are not any. Thus I take the establishment of a contradiction in the idea of me being God to establish that I am not God. Not because i think God is incapable of making contradictions true, but because i am myself confident they are not true.
But let's say that my own belief that contradictions are not true is somehow consistent with me being God and with contradictions being true - all that does is confirm what I am arguing, namely that it is possible I am God.
Like I say, I think that establishing a contradiction in the idea of me being God does serve to preclude the epistemic possibility of me being God, given what I actually believe. But if I am wrong about that, I am possibly God even under those circumstances.

Yes, if I was God I could.

I do not believe I am omniscient. The question is whether that is consistent with me being omniscient. Can an omniscient being be ignorant of their omniscience? If the answer is yes, then the fact that I do not believe myself to be omniscient would not establish that I am not God.

God's own will constitutively determines what is and is not an item of knowledge. So, if God does not believe a thing, then that thing lacks a justification, even if it is true. And so if God does not believe he is omniscient, then what that would mean is that the true belief that he is omniscient is unjustified and thus not an item of knowledge. Until or unless God believes in his own omniscience, the true belief in it will not be an item of knowledge and thus God's ignorance of his omniscience will be compatible with his possession of it. And thus the fact that I myself do not believe in my own omniscience does not establish that I am not God.

I don't believe there are true contradictions. — Bartricks

But if you were god, and god can contradict himself, you could make it so that you don't believe that there are true contradictions, and yet that there are, and that this was consistent...

Yes, but I am not doing that. I believe there are no true contradictions. So the question is whether that is consistent with my being God. And it is.
All you're doing is pointing out something that I have been very clear about myself, namely that God can make true contradictions.

All you're doing is pointing out something that I have been very clear about myself, namely that God can make true contradictions. — Bartricks

Indeed.

Because once you admit contradictions, as you have done, rationality ceases.

I am pointing out your petard.

No, you are just confusing being able to do something with actually doing it.

I am able to be in France. You think that means I am in France, don't you? You think I have just admitted being in France. Crazy. I don't know how to reason with someone who thinks that follows. I have not 'admitted contradictions' then.

You have said I have committed contradictions in what I have argued above. Locate one.