Whereas "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is a combination of two lower level thoughts.
— Patterner

But you have said that "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is the lower level thought. — RussellA

And you pointed out that it is (what might be called?) a compound lower level thought.

And then there's the added "I think..." Which raises it to a different (what I'm calling) level. Whereas "the oak tree is shedding its leaves" is a combination of two lower level thoughts.

So then is the question "Can you think A and B at the same time?" rather than "Can you be A and B at the same time?"?

“Sorry, but I don’t have this experience. When I look out the window and say to myself, ‛That oak tree is shedding its leaves,’ I am not aware of also, and simultaneously, thinking anything along the lines of ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ Please don’t misunderstand me as saying that I’ve never had such a thought, or wouldn’t know what it was to experience such a thought. There are indeed circumstances under which I may additionally reflect ‛And I am thinking thought p at this moment’ or ‛Thought p is my thought’ or ‛I judge that p’. But I disagree that this characterizes my experience of thinking in general.” — J

A cat is thinking about the leaves falling off the tree as it playfully leaps up to attack them as they're falling. But I do not believe a cat is capable of thinking about thinking about the leaves falling off the tree. That's a different level of thought, of which cats are not capable. (I don't know terminology. Levels? Kinds? Types?)

Is this an example of nested thoughts? Is it possible to think ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ without thinking ‛The oak tree is shedding its leaves.’? The words are actually in the sentence, after all. The higher level thought cannot exist without the lower level thought. How would I know the difference between ‛I think that the oak tree is shedding its leaves.’ and ‛I think that the chair is broken.’ if I wasn't thinking the lower level thought within the higher level thought?

However, i also understand the difference. And i agree with Pat. Even if I can't think the higher level thought without the lower level though, I can think the lower level thought without the higher.

Indeed. Well said.

The first thesis ("My senses can device me" is a skeptical premise), from there the author asks a conditional statement: "If p (I cannot trust my senses), then q (I might as well conclude that outside reality doesn't exist".

That's questionable. That very statement. — Arcane Sandwich

Of course it's questionable. If outside reality didn't exist, we wouldn't have ways of sensing it.

From The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - and Its Implications, by David Deutsch.

There is a standard philosophical joke about a professor who gives a lecture in defence of solipsism. So persuasive is the lecture that as soon as it ends, several enthusiastic students hurry forward to shake the professor’s hand. ‘Wonderful. I agreed with every word,’ says one student earnestly. ‘So did I,’ says another. ‘I am very gratified to hear it,’ says the professor. ‘One so seldom has the opportunity to meet fellow solipsists.’ — David Deutsch

I doubt it's simple as that in this world. — Gmak

Certainly not on this forum. :grin:

My understanding of the Tao is that we are all a part of a greater whole, and to whatever end there is a purpose in life, it's to find what your purpose is and be the best at it as your authentic, genuine self. — MrLiminal

The first translation of the Tao Te Ching I ever saw was Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English. I read it very heavily, memorizing a quarter of it, before ever looking at another translation. So that's the translation I get my thoughts from. The following is rather wordy. :rofl: :rofl: I don't post things of such length. But this is what I wrote when I had a geocities page many years ago. Geocities hasn't even been around in many years. I haven't looked at this in years, but I still agree with my younger self. Still, it's a lot, so nobody feel bad about not getting through it. :rofl:


Taoism speaks of the way of the universe, the way of nature. It speaks of what it considers the best way to live. That is, living without anger, hatred, frustration, and all the other negative emotions. Living as the universe exists, without effort or worry.

And how is that accomplished? In Taoism, it all comes down to this: Give up desire..

If people lack knowledge and desire, then intellectuals will not try to interfere. If nothing is done, then all will be well. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 3

Observers of the Tao do not seek fulfillment. Not seeking fulfillment, they are not swayed by desire for change. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 15

Without desire there is tranquility. And in this way all things would be at peace. — Tao Te Ching, Verse 37

That’s all you need to know. Such a simple thing, really. Give up desire, and you will be content. And in your contentment, you will be able to find happiness.
I could stop now. And if you followed that advice, all would become clear to you. But I'll explain the nuts and bolts of it all.

In the Tao, everything acts only within its nature. The sun burns, the hawk hunts, the water runs, the tree grows. Water does not desire to run uphill. It does not attempt to act in a manner inconsistent with its nature, the Tao. The hawk does not desire to burrow into the ground as the mole does. It does not attempt to fight the Tao.

And despite the fact that things act only according to their nature, every single thing that is necessary for the continued existence of the universe is accomplished. My very favorite passage from the Tao Te Ching:
Tao abides in non-action, yet nothing is left undone.
Things run perfectly without thinking and planning, without fighting against the universe.

The problem is that we are no longer part of the Tao. We have lost our Way. We don't see the glorious harmony of it all, the perfection of the universe's intricacies. And we don't even know that we are lost! We have separated ourselves from everything, and then go back and try to possess it all. That damned desire!

We desire things that the universe does not naturally give us. If the earth was made entirely of gold, we would not desire gold. We don't desire what we have, or can have whenever we want. We only desire what is not readily available to us.

Therefore, when you act to attain what you desire, you are fighting the Tao. You are fighting the natural order of the universe. That's worth repeating: You are fighting the natural order of the universe! Doesn't that seem like a strange, arrogant, and impossible thing to do?

The problem is that desire simply can't be satisfied. On the practical side, it just doesn’t work. Yes, many individual desires can be achieved. But as soon as you get one thing that you desire, another pops up. Then another, and another..... Eventually, you will desire something that you can't have. Maybe you don’t have enough money. Maybe not enough time. Eventually, you will be frustrated. You may envy those who have what you cannot. You may hate them, steal from them, or kill them to take what they have.

On the spiritual side, desire is all consuming. Even if you could eventually get any particular thing that you set your sights on, there is simply no end to the wanting. Desire itself cannot be satisfied. It’s an all-or-nothing type of thing. If you have it, there is no end. No point where you say, "Ah, I now have everything I desire. I can relax now and enjoy all that I have." Give it up completely, or be prepared to spend your entire life trying, and often failing, to get one thing after another after another.(

So give up desire, and give up the negative results. The constant wanting, frustration, and anger. Accept what the Tao provides you, desire nothing that is not provided, and you will live in peace and happiness. Do only what is necessary to live, to eat, to breath, to be. If the Tao does not provide it to you, you don't need it.

This might seem somehow wrong. After all, doesn’t giving up desire mean giving up caring and being happy with something? Not really. Someone could taste chocolate for the first time in their life at the age of 40, and absolutely love it. But never having tried it before, their enjoyment of it clearly had nothing to do with desire for it. We will like and dislike things even if we are free of desire. Our preferences will still be there. The thing is, if you're not spending so much time and energy trying to satisfy desires, and being frustrated and angry over those desires that you can't manage to fulfill, you will realize that there are a thousand things every day that will make you happy. Pay attention to the moment. Notice the beauty and happiness that is around all the time. That old “stop and smell the roses” idea. Just because I enjoyed something, say a particular meal, doesn’t mean I have to drive myself crazy wanting to have it the next day. If I have it again, I’m happy again. But I can still be happy with other meals that come my way. Here’s a great story to illustrate my point. It's said to be a Zen story. But the connection between Taoism and Zen is obvious. I got this from a comic book called The Hands of Shang-Chi: Master of Kung Fu. The writer, Doug Moench, said it was his favorite.

A man was being chased by a ravenous tiger. He came to the edge of a cliff and began to climb down a hanging vine. Then he looked and saw a second, equally ravenous tiger waiting at the bottom. At that moment, a mouse began to gnaw at the vine. Something caught the man’s eye - a luscious, red strawberry growing just within his reach. He plucked it and ate it and exclaimed, “How delicious this is!” — Old Zen Story

This is obviously an extreme example of giving up desire; giving up the desire to continue living another five minutes. But when he realized that he could not change his fate, he let go of the desire to do so, and took the pleasure that was available to him. He was not thinking, "I want a strawberry before I die." He just happened to find one, and ate it. Just because he was not going to experience pleasure beyond the next five minutes, doesn’t mean that he couldn’t experience it within the next five minutes. Holding on to his desire to live would have precluded his ability to be happy in the last moments of his life. Remember the story when something infinitely less important than your imminent demise is bothering you, and realize that it’s probably not that important anyway. And if it can’t be changed, it doesn’t matter how important it is. Let it go.

The natural consequence of having no desire is something called wu-wei. This is usually translated as things like "non-action", "non-contrived", "non-ado", etc. The best explanation of the term that I've seen is from The Tao of Zen, by Ray Grigg. He says:

When non-doing appears as inaction it is peaceful, silent, and still; when it appears as action it is thoughtless, reflexive, and intuitive. — Ray Grigg

When we desire, our actions are planned and schemed. They are for a reason, with a goal in mind. Our energy is wasted trying to change circumstances, fighting the natural order of the universe. But when we practice wu-wei, our actions are unmotivated and instinctual. They are natural reactions to the moment.

Wu-wei is not gained through any desire, effort, or plan. You do not say, "I will achieve wu-wei in the following manner..." It is simply the way things without desire act. If you desire nothing, your actions will not be the result of any intent to satisfy a desire. Instead, your actions will simply be in accordance with what is happening around you. Because of our self-preservation instinct, the man in the story above did what he could to survive. His actions were the response to the moment; needs and instinct were driving him. (Of course, most of us desire to live, and his actions might be seen as attempts to achieve this desire. But animals that never think "I want to live" behave the same way. Without any conscious desire to live, the man would have instinctively acted the same way.) When he knew that his life was over, when there was no spontaneous/instinctual act left to perform (and, if desire to live did, indeed, play a role in his previous actions, he realized that no possible action could achieve this desire, and so stopped acting on it), he ate the strawberry. This was not a planned action based on any desire. It was a spontaneous action, made possible by the situation he was in.

And here are a bunch of quotes. They deal with the concept of giving up desire, accepting what comes to you through the Tao, and not fighting against it. These are all from non-Taoist sources, which are, nevertheless, clearly expressing this ideal.

It is from understanding that power comes; and the power in the ceremony was in understanding what it meant; for nothing can live well except in a manner that is suited to the way the sacred Power of the World lives and moves. — Black Elk

I will tell you something about the Sahara. This desert is very simple to survive in. You must only admit there is something on Earth larger than you...the wind...the dryness...the distance...the Sahara. You accept that, and everything is fine. The desert will provide. Inshallah. If you do not, the desert will break you. Admit your weakness to the Sahara’s face, and all is fine. — Nouhou Agah, in the March 1999 National Geographic, page 24,

The Man from Mars sat down when Jill left. He did not pick up the picture book but simply waited in a fashion which may be described as ‘patient’ only because human language does not embrace Martian attitudes. He held still with quiet happiness because his brother had said that he would return. He was prepared to wait, without moving, without doing anything, for several years. — Robert Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

The Hopis had held a rain dance Sunday, calling on the clouds - their ancestors - to restore the water blessing to the land. Perhaps the kachinas had listened to their Hopi children. Perhaps not. It was not a Navajo concept, this idea of adjusting nature to human needs. The Navajo adjusted himself to remain in harmony with the universe. When nature withheld the rain, the Navajo sought the pattern of this phenomenon - as he sought the pattern of all things - to find its beauty and live in harmony with it. — Tony Hillerman, Listening Woman

Harvest what you grow
There’ll be so much to show
And you will have everything you need
(Like you need anything else) — Rabbit, in Sing A Song With Pooh Bear

Therefore I tell you, do not be anxious about your life, what you shall eat or what you shall drink, nor about your body, what you shall put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? And which of you by being anxious can add one cubit to his span of life? And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O men of little faith? — Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 6: 25-30

A condition of complete simplicity (Costing nothing less than everything) — T.S. Eliot: The state of being a Christian

You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometime,
you just might find
you get what you need. — The Rolling Stones

Chapter 10 of The Little Prince, by Antoine de Saint Exupery, is a lesson in Taoism. He is obviously familiar with the Tao Te Ching. Very nice work.

I think it was made for tv, and you might be thinking it was an episode or two. Awesome scene, where he meets Po for the first time:
https://youtu.be/tuoyeNqRI8A

Maybe my favorite moment in the Tao Te Ching is the beginning of Verse 37 (Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English translation):

Tao abides in non-action,
Yet nothing is left undone. — Lao Tzu

I was a huge fan of the Kung Fu movie and tv show and Ursula K Le Guin's Earthsea books for many years. Then, for reasons I don't remember, I thought I should take a look at the Tao Te Ching. I was stunned and thrilled to see where so much of Kung Fu and Earthsea came from. Some of it is quoted in Kung Fu, particularly by Masters Po and Kwan.

Turns out Le Guin wrote her own version of the TTC. Not a translation, because she didn't know Chinese. But she owned many translations, and wrote what it meant to her.

in my view he doesn't wrestle with the question of ipseity, the nature of subjective awareness as such. — Wayfarer

So then he doesn't get specific. Which sounds something like in there neighborhood of vague to me. Anyway, I have Mind in Life. I hope to get to it soon.

We have much in common physiologically speaking. I seems to me that the greatest divergence consists in the ways we each interpret the general nature of experience. — Janus

I think we have at least a couple of major differences. Going back to an earlier conversation, I can definitely look at something, and be aware that I'm looking at it, at the same time. I can talk about my awareness of looking at it, and anything else about it, and I will still notice if something blocks my vision of the thing, moves it, throws paint on it... I wouldn't see it move or change if I was not still looking at it while discussing my awareness of looking at it.

If you cannot do that, then we are very different.

I think it's a vague way of approaching the issue, and I think it has to be. Part of what Nagel was saying is that we can't understand what it's like to be a bat. We're too different to even pretend we can imagine being a bat.

But we can still consider whether there's anything it's like. As opposed to what it's like to be a rock. There's nothing it's like to be a rock. Who thinks a bat's subjective experience is as absent as a rock's?

I didn't mean those conditions specifically. I just used them as things that are sometimes very different from one person to another. You and I are not always simply interpreting things differently.

↪Patterner I don't know about you, but all my feelings seem physical, visceral, bodily, to me. Even mental associations, such as I may experience when reading, looking at artworks, listening to music or thinking about someone I love, evoke feelings I can only understand and describe as bodily. — Janus

You and I seem to be very different. :rofl: This isn't the first time our conversation has made me think of things like aphantasia and anaduralia. I don't know which of us lacks this or that ability that the other has, but we experience life very differently.

Sorry. It was getting late, and I forgot to finish my thoughts.

Does it just mean that the animal feels something then? — Janus

I believe that's what Nagel means. I think "There's something it's likes to be a bat" means "There's something it feels like to be a bat." But not a physical feeling. At least not only physical feelings. Do you have a feeling of your own existence aside from your physical body? Yes, we feel when our skin is torn. But we have a feeling about pain. We feel different ways about different people. We feel a certain way about one genre of music, but differently about another. We have feelings about specific pieces of music. I have very strong feelings about various instrumental works be Bach, Beethoven, and others. The last half of Layla, by Derek and the a Dominoes is a good example. We feel certain ways about political issues and moral issues. We feel love and hate. Many different feelings and types of feelings. And it all combines into what it's like to be me.

Animals don't have feelings about political issues. I doubt they have moral concepts. What about music; food; being chased, or hugged, by a human? Which animals is there something it is like to be? Which are self-reflectively aware?

Does it just mean that the animal feels something then? — Janus

I believe that's what Nagel means. I think "There's something it's likes to be a bat" means "There's something it feels like to be a bat.". But not a physical feeling.

ChatGPT doesn't play with language in the sense I mean. It is programmed to sample vast amounts of relevant language and predict the most appropriate sentences to any question as I understand it. It doesn't claim to be self-reflective either. — Janus

I don't know enough about ChatGPT to know if it's a good example of the idea that's only half-baked in my head. I'm wondering what you mean by "playing with language". How does that come about? Can we program a computer to do that? If so, does that mean it's self-reflectively aware? Even if it doesn't claim to be? If it needs to claim to be, but doesn't, what is it about us that makes us claim to be, despite the fact that we aren't? What extra programming would we have to give the computer?

The idea of things going on "in the dark" may be an incoherent idea. Do things go on in the dark for animals if they cannot be self-reflectively aware? — Janus

Not necessarily. I don't think subjective experience and self-reflective awareness are the same thing. If there's something it's like to be the entity, to the entity, then all the physical things and processes that make it up are not taking place "in the dark". I couldn't guess what level of complexity is needed for that subjective experience, but I wouldn't assume it doesn't happen until self-reflective awareness comes about.

If all the mental abilities I have that a mouse doesn't were taken from me, making me the equivalent of a mouse, mouse-me would surely not remember what it's like to be human-me. Mouse-I wouldn't have the capacity for the thoughts and memories, or any conception, of human-me.

But when my human capacities were restored, would I have any recollection of what it was like to be the mouse? Even a vague impression? Surely more than what I would have if I had been a rock.

Are we really self-reflectively aware or are we just playing with language? — Janus

I don't understand how this works. If we program computers to play with language in this way, if ChatGPT does it, would it falsely believe it is self-reflectively aware? It seems like pretending to be conscious.

Having a multitude of different thoughts at exactly the same time, is exactly what a complex concept is. Consider a relatively simple complex concept, like "right angle triangle". That concept consists of "triangle", which is itself complex, and also "right angle" which is complex. So there's a number of different ideas tied up in understanding "right angle triangle". Now consider "Pythagorean theorem". This consists not only of "right angle triangle", but a bunch more ideas about the relationships between the lengths of the sides of that type of triangle. It appears that to adequately understand "Pythagorean theorem", a person must be able to have all these ideas in one's mind at the same time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, all you say is certainly right. However, can you look at that paragraph of yours that I quoted and write it on paper, or type it, while doing fairly simple math? Something along the lines of 673x8. Or 435+62+787. It seems to me the things you are taking about are related ideas. One thing building on the other. But there's no connection between writing those sentences and sound math problems. Thinking entirely different types of thoughts is more difficult, and possibly impossible beyond a certain level of complexity.

Hopefully, not whilst driving.

Perhaps the law on the use of mobile phones whilst driving shows that even the Government accepts the difficulty in carrying out two acts both requiring different thoughts at the same time. — RussellA

I plead the 5th.

In practice, it seems that humans have great difficulty in having two different thoughts at (exactly) the same time. — RussellA

Indeed. I'm sure it can be done to at least some degree, even if not to that which people generally assume. There's definitely a lot of jumping back and forth very quickly taking place.

The singing could have been employing a "muscle memory" rather than active thought, allowing you do carry out another task that did require an active thought. — RussellA

I'm sure at least some degree of muscle memory is involved in singing. Even with speaking. Neither as much as playing an instrument, though. Having played the piano for many years, I'm very familiar with it. An aspect of Mozart's extraordinary musical abilities was doubtless due to it. He is said to have composed pieces while performing other pieces. I would imagine that was possible because his muscle memory was so complete he wasn't thinking about the music he was performing at all. Which would free his mind for thinking about other music.

I believe singing is different. You can press a key on the piano without thinking about anything at all musical. When singing, however, you are actually producing the music. That can't be done without thinking about the music.

It's a very interesting topic. I will have to experiment on this.

I will also have to experiment in non-musical ways. I'm going to try doing some math while writing sentences. The only muscle memory that could be involved in that is the writing of individual letters, and possibly words. But there couldn't be muscle memory for entire sentences, Unless they are sentences I have written many times, like a student being punished in school by having to write something on the board 100 times. I don't remember ever having to do that, but certainly I won't pick anything that could conceivably be an example of that.

I tried writing "four" whilst speaking "four". The problem was that it took me four times as long to write "four" as to speak "four", meaning that it was difficult to know whether I was thinking about writing the word at the same time as I was thinking about speaking the word. — RussellA

I did not try writing what I was speaking so that I would not be wondering that very thing. I also suggest both things be of longer duration than one word.

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. — Corvus

Neither the title of the thread nor your OP mention God or religion. I thought the idea would be to discuss the concept of omnipotence. I didn't know you are only interested in discussing God, and how omnipotence fits a particular religion's needs. I have less than no interest in such a discussion. But we are all entitled to discuss what we want to discuss. This is your thread, so have at it, and enjoy! :grin:

That is my logical inference. If you think it is not correct, then prove it. — Corvus

I don't have to prove my logical inference any more than you have to prove yours. There is no reason to think an omnipotent being cannot choose to ceasr to exist.

Talking about a non-existing hypothetical being with omnipotence is not really going you get you anywhere. — Corvus

Talking about non-existent deities, and the characteristics people made up for them, is going to get you exactly the same place. Any ideas we come up with for our hypothesized beings are as valid as the ideas people in the past came up with for their hypothesized beings.

If a being is omnipotent, then the being cannot die. If being can die, then it is not an omnipotent being. — Corvus

Do you have any support for this idea?

You seem to be talking about an omnipotent being which doesn't exist. — Corvus

Of course that's what I'm talking about. I have literally said I'm talking about a hypothetical omnipotent being. I said it twice, in fact.

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?

However, if you have ever taken a look at how this multitasking actually occurs, you'll see that there is constant switching of which act receives priority.
— Metaphysician Undercover

That is exactly what I am saying, attention is switched between events, first one, then the other. But not at the same time. — RussellA

I try to test this on myself from time to time. For example, I just wrote "Four score and seven years ago" while singing Yesterday. I sang continuously. There were times when I stopped writing after one word or another, but I kept the song going, and started writing again.

I'm often amazed beyond description by the speed and scale at which things happen. So I can't guarantee I don't switch back and forth every few microseconds. But it certainly doesn't seem that that's the case.

I can have the thought of coldness, and can then have the thought of hotness, but the question is, is it possible to have a single thought of both coldness and hotness at the same time. — RussellA

Yes, that's the real question. I'm just saying you can receive conflicting feelings from your finger simultaneously. I wonder if, if the ice and match are close enough together, it might feel as though the conflicting feelings are coming from the exact same spot.

If it were possible to have two contradictory thoughts at the same time, then I could feel pain in my finger and not feel pain in my finger at the same time. — RussellA

That's having contradictory feelings in your finger at the same time, not having contradictory thoughts at the same time. If one part of your finger is touching an ice cube, and you hold a match to another part of your finger, then you would be feeling hot and cold in your finger at the same time.

If I had not been born, then I would not be writing this post
I am writing this post
Therefore I was born — RussellA

If you did not exist, then you would not be writing that post. Perhaps you were created in a lab. Or you are a computer program. Or you are an eternal being that has always existed, and you erase your memory every so often in order to remain sane.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

Yes. I now understand they are not your concluding claims. They are assumptions. I'm asking if you can support or clarify your assumptions.

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?

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?

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.