It's option (4). I am effectively saying that your mind is simply what your brain does, because the mind is a process (a neuro-cognitive process) that the brain undergoes. — Arcane Sandwich

I am not sure if it is that simple. I also wonder if it would be much point to say mind is what brain does, when we don't know any details about the "does" part of brain. I mean when you say 2+2=4, what exactly is happening in the brain with which chemicals, which links to what cells.

Fair enough. Is that what you would like to talk about? Explain your point of view to me, then, if that's what you would prefer to discuss. — Arcane Sandwich

Those are just my main interests, but I would talk about anything if it is philosophical and interesting topic. Not limiting my self to just talk about certain topics at all.

But my point was that talking about brain as a biological or neurological point of view wouldn't get us very far trying to find out what mind is, and getting back to the OP - answering what the factual properties of a person are, and why the factual properties cannot be altered. Science will simply not be able to answer the questions.

Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing. — Arcane Sandwich

When you claimed your mind is simply what you brain does. It was not clear. It sounded like,

1) Your mind is your brain, or
2) Your brain does something to the mind, or
3) Your brain tells your mind to do all the things, or
4) Your mind is simply what your brain does.
5) So you have your brain, and also the mind which sounded like the Cartesian dualist.
6) But then you say, your mind is your brain.

Anyhow, you brought in brain into the discussion, hence my point was we get very little philosophical juice out of brain, because it is not really the central topic of the subject, and also even in the neurology and neurocognitive science, the researches on the hard gap between mind and brain is ongoing without resolute answers yet. Recall what you said on your previous posts?

No Corvus, brain does not tell mind what to do. Brain does mind. Brain undergoes a process, and that process is mind. And that is what my brain is telling your brain, right now. You are free to disbelieve it. But I am just as free to believe it. Right? — Arcane Sandwich

Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree. — Arcane Sandwich

I am more interested in the discussions of perception, consciousness, reasoning, propositions, belief, truth and logical proof in philosophy. Not really into biology or neurology at all.

You're asking a question that falls within the domain of one of the most cutting-edge sciences of today, cognitive neuroscience. I am not a neuroscientist. I cannot answer that question myself. And I'm not even sure that cognitive neuroscientists have figured that out yet, but there might be some promising research programs in that sense. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, you posited brain as mind saying that brain tells your mind to do things, hence my point is that if you go to that direction, then that is what you are facing. As you say brain as a biological organ is for the neurology and biology, and their interest of the study is different from the philosophical point of view.

But Philosophy can still examine on all the subjects and topics under the sun, to investigate what they claim to be true is making sense from logical point of view.

We can deduce a Permanent Eternal Something that rearranges itself to form the temporaries, — PoeticUniverse

My inference that Australia exists is based on the real experience of meeting some folks from the land, that they are from the countries, and they spoke to me with funny English accents in my good old days in the international high school in Jakarta Indonesia when my father was working in the place.

  I recall the tall Australian guy Steve, who used to say Hi to me, then asked to teach him Tae Kwon Do, so I taught him some Tae Kwon Do movements.  In return he taught me some tricks in playing basketball which he was very good at.

There was also this beautiful blond girl called Ingrid from Australia who came and sat beside me at lunch time, and we used to have sandwiches and hamburgers together.  When we went to Bandung for the school trip, she sat beside me in the bus, and fell asleep with her head on my shoulder, which I still recall.  

 Plus I saw some youtube bits on the places supposedly taken in the places, and they just looked like any place on the earth, but with loads of bushes and fields and some beaches with the folks which looked realistic.  Therefore my belief that Australia exists is as firm and certain as my knowledge that the Earth rotates around the Sun.  However I have no clue what it would be like living in the place under the scorching Sun during the winter months where I am, because still I have never been in the place in real life.

But in the case of deducing something Permanent and Eternal being, I have no real life experience pertaining to the concept, hence I am not sure what could be the basis for such deduction or inference.

such that there is a series of events and processes that such object, -the brain-, is undergoing when it is engaged in any cognitive activity, including what you call "consciousness". I don't like the word "consciousness" myself, I prefer the word "awareness". — Arcane Sandwich

Sure, everyone knows that. But problem is what part of the chemistry and neurons in the brain represents your reasoning Socrates is mortal? and under what forms?

Not quite. The brain is not identical to the mind, and the mind cannot be reduced to the brain. The mind (as a series of events, and as a series of complex processes) is itself a series of events and processes that a living brain is undergoing. — Arcane Sandwich

I read your saying brain tells mind what to do. That sounded like your brain does everything, and even orders your mind to do all the things for you. Your point was not clear at all.

I have never seen or heard of a brain with mouth and tongue and tells & orders its mind what to do.

Well but it's an odd thing to talk about, innit? (Hold up while I put on my best "King's Slang", if that's even a thing). How on Earth could the Principle of Sufficient Reason be false? That just makes no sense to me. It makes no sense to anyone. And if the PSR is actually false, as you say it is, then what do we make of it? Can my table turn into a swan, for example? Can a squid pop up into existence in my living room? I mean, if there is no reason for anything, then literally anything can happen at any moment? How does that make even a sliver of sense, ey? — Arcane Sandwich

In here, you seem to have misunderstood what I said. I never said that there are no reasons for everything in the universe. What I meant was, there are some events and happenings that you don't know the reasons. And there are SOME events and objects happening and existing in the universe with no particular reasons or unknown reasons.

You brain doesn't "tell your mind" anything, you brain is what minds, so to speak. For example, when you tell me to "mind my own business", you are giving a direct order to my brain, not to my mind. Does that make sense? — Arcane Sandwich

We seem to have difference in the opinion or ideas whatever you call it, but it is OK. I still don't think the biological organ brain is mind. It is like saying your stomach is hunger, and your eyeballs are the sight. The bodily organs do things for you, so you would keep living biologically, but they are not the functions they carry out themselves.

In daily life, brain is hidden away from your living. You never perceive the brain itself while you are living ever. That doesn't mean brain is nothing to do with your mind of course. It just is logically not sound to say the physical brain is your mind i.e. feelings, thoughts, imaginations and desires, just like your stomach is not the hunger you feel. You feel hunger because you have a stomach. You have mind because you have a brain.

This is reflected well in our culture and daily life too. You say, mind your business, but you don't say, brain your business. You say, mind your steps, you never say brain your steps. I never heard of someone saying, open your brain. I heard saying open your mind.

Not only did I not choose to be born, I didn’t even choose to be born in this place instead of that place. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, this question confirms that the PSR is false, and nonsense. There is no reason on some facts. If you still insist that you need answer for your question, then what you will get would be an answer of tautology in nature - because your parents have given birth to you.

You may feel that is not the answer you were looking for, and it is not an intelligible answer to accept. In that case you must resort to the religious system for the answer. They will give you the answer quite easily and resolutely - well you were destined to be born as you, and it was the act of God, something like that.

You have to either be religious and accept their answers based on fate or God's will, or you have to accept the fact that some events in the universe have no reasons, or we don't know the reasons why they happened and are happening.

Their ingrained beliefs the priests’ duly preach, — PoeticUniverse

Beliefs don't mean they are inferior to knowledge. They are actually precondition of knowledge. If you know something then you also believe in something too. And if you believe in something, then you are possible to know it too. Not necessarily all the time, but the possibility exists.

I believe that Australia exists, but I have never been in the place. It is only a belief, but I cannot deny it exist, just because I have never been in the place, and never seen any part of the land in my real experience.

My belief of its existence is as firm as any other knowledge I have for certain.
Therefore some beliefs have a high certainty as knowledge. It depends on what evidence and reasoning, or just guessing or blind faith the belief is based on.

Therefore it could be the case that some religious beliefs based on strong and deep faith could offer high certainty of knowledge of God, albeit it might be a false knowledge, illusion or even delusion.

Unfortunately, for believers, a being cannot be First and Fundamental; look to the more complex future for higher beings, not to the simpler and simpler past. — PoeticUniverse

Beings can be non-existence like from Meinong's beingless objects. They belong to the domain of faith, conjecture, thought and belief.

Yes... this sounds reasonable... but again, my "instinct" just tells me that something about this is... "off".. — Arcane Sandwich

You are welcome to disagree. That is what philosophical debates are about. But it would be better if you could explain why you disagree, rather than just saying you disagree from your "instinct".

Hmmm... but my mind is simply what my brain does, just as my digestion is simply what my gut does. Right? Or do you disagree? Feel free to disagree. — Arcane Sandwich

Your mind is simply what your brain does? I don't get that at all. Brain is needed for mind to operate, but brain does ??? something? Brain is just a biological organ of physical body, which makes mental events possible. Not sure if it does something.

Your mind has all the mental events perceptions, feelings, reasoning, thinking, memorizing, willing ... etc. I am not sure if it makes sense your mind is just what your brain does. Because there is a hard gap, the gap between the biological brain and your mind. Perhaps you could explain how your brains tells your mind to have all the mental events and operations, it would be helpful, and then I could decide whether to agree or disagree with your explanation.

I don't think they would be good drinking partners, if I'm being honest. I think I'd rather talk to Willard van Orman Quine, for example, while I'm drunk. — Arcane Sandwich

Sure, Quine would be an interesting guy to have drinks with. He spoke a few foreign languages, and traveled the world extensively. He wrote many interesting Logic books. And I agree with most of what he said.

The furthest and most solid evidence and proof I got on the existence of God was the word God, which I can see, read and type on the computer screen. All else with the existence of God is a matter of conjecture and personal faith.

It is an illogical statement to say God exists. The correct way of saying that statement is, one believes in God.

But since I cannot change them, I "experience" them as necessary facts. Actually, "experience" is not the right technical term to use here. It's more like an "awareness". It's like I have a "double awareness": I'm aware that I could have been born somewhere else, and in some other time, but at the same time I'm aware that I can't change "where I was born, in a spatial sense", just as much as I can't change "when I was born, in a temporal sense."

Does that sound like nonsense to you? It kinda does to me. It just strikes me as odd. Not necessarily "wrong" from a theoretical standpoint, but just plain odd from the POV of plain and simple English. — Arcane Sandwich

No, they are not nonsense at all. We all had such questions and ideas at some point in our lives for sure. It is an interesting point, and this is what I think about it.

The reason that you cannot be born in any other place at any other time is because every particle of your physical body is bound in space and time. Time never allows any physical objects to travel to the past. Hence you are always heading to the future by the law. If you can travel to the past in time, then you could change all the factual properties of you any way you want. But you are bound in time to the present in time heading to the future just like all of us in the universe.

While your physical body is bound by space and time, your mind is free. Your mind can clock back to the past ancient Greek and Roman empire, meet Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, go to a pub, and have some philosophical chats while drinking beer. But you can only do that in your imagination. When you wake up from the imagination or dream, you will find your body still bound in the space where you were physically, and time which is the present heading towards the future.

Rather than the idea being a solid "thing" in the mind, I believe the physical manifestation of thoughts can be seen in the specific electrical/chemical reactions happening in a persons brain when they think that thing. So ideas are physically real, but exist as more as an ongoing natural process rather than a concrete object. Imagining an object and looking at an object light up similar parts of the brain in scans, which I think is the closest we can currently get to "seeing" thoughts from the outside. — MrLiminal

Good point. But electrical / chemical reactions in the brain are not ideas themselves. Electrons and chemical particles exist everywhere in the universe, even inside the brain. They react to each other with every possible minuscule physical stimuli and in most times, they react with no particular causes or reasons whatsoever too.

Seeing the electrical / chemical reactions in the brain via some measuring instruments and saying that must be ideas sounds not quite convincing.

It is like those folks who think the red light from the traffic lights are identical entity with the instruction to stop, and the green legal contract to "Go". They are just legal contracts between the government and the drivers. They could easily have made pink to stop, and orange to go.

The physical objects and events in the external world are not the ideas, knowledge, information or concepts themselves. Of course, they can be linked, but they are not the same in ontological sense.

:up: :cool:

True, I agree with that.
Whether the notion of beauty always has to arise in correlation with rationality or not is an interesting thought. — Prometheus2

The reasoned beauty tends to be objective and universal in its quality and value, because that is the prime property of rationality and reason.

The emotional side of beauty would be subjective and personal. If you are feeling stressed out in your mind due to some daily life problems, then you might not feel the same from the objects which you used to feel beautiful.

Why is my existence as a person (and as an "Aristotelian substance") characterized by the factual properties that I have, instead of other factual properties? The perplexing thing here is that factual properties are contingent (in a modal sense), even though I experience them as necessary (in a modal sense). — Arcane Sandwich

Could it be space and time which makes every objects and events in the universe unique and contingent? There can be no object which can share the same points of space and the moment of time physically.

Being in different space and different time as different objects necessitates every events ever taking place in the universe contingent and unique. It is the principle of the physical nature of space and time which limits the facts, experiences, events and properties of the objects. If we were the particles in QM space and time, then the situation might be different.

If you can swap your particles of the body with someone else's, then you could experience multiple factual properties.

And the dogmatic slumber to awaken from? To critique the grounding principles for? That to which I wished to direct your attention, but apparently failed miserably? — Mww

When you were talking about the missed opportunity for waking up from Dogmatic Slumber, it reminded me of Kant's position when he rejected Wolff and Leibniz's ideas, having read Hume. That was all. :)

Though since usually beauty is seen as a type of feeling, could we still perceive it if we were completely rational beings? Or on the contrary, entirely emotional? Makes me wonder.. — Prometheus2

The art critiques would use rationality and reasoning in analysing the art objects such as paintings and sculptures. In this case analysis based on the fine observation on the colours, shapes and themes of the art would be the objects for their analysis for writing their artistic praise or critiques.

If you are to compare art works of different artists such as Picasso and Dali, or Van Gogh and Gogang, then you would heavily depend on your rationality and reasoning for making the critical analysis to come to the comparative commentaries on their works too.

But if you are perceiving the art objects or beautiful scenery in ordinary daily life, then I would reckon your aesthetic judgements on them would be more likely based on the emotional responses to the objects or scenes.

The reasoned beauties could give you the rational reasons why Picasso suits better than Van Gogh for the space with the modern furnishings, however, it might not be able to offer the psychological pleasure, ecstasy and peace of mind you would get from the purely emotional judgements and feelings of the beautiful objects or scenery you encounter in your daily life.

All this thinking about when, why and how we perceive something as beautiful made me question what 'beauty' itself even is or what it really means.
"Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.", is a well-known saying that might come to mind here. — Prometheus2

Beauty is a property of the object perceived by mind, and has psychological nature. In that sense, beauty is more subjective judgement rather than objective value.

If you find a scenery with the sunset or sunrise beautiful, that means your psychology is uniting with the image not just visually but also emotionally positive way because of the various psychological factors such as your past experiences connecting to the scenery, objects or person or personal aesthetic taste or deep religious faith, which reminds the deity or peace of mind from the images you see.

Of course the visual effect would be a critical factor in the aesthetic judgement, but more importantly the subjective psychological or emotional state responding the the sensory perceptions in aesthetic way plays critical part in judging and feeling beauty on something.

I am not sure if rationality or reasoning could be also basis for judging something as beautiful. I would guess Kant would say Yes, but Nietzsche or Schopenhauer might say No.

Same as it ever was…… — Mww

Doesn't it sound too pessimistic and prejudging? :D

One purportedly missed the opportunity to be awakened from “dogmatic slumbers”, — Mww

According to Kant, you fall into dogmatic slumber when you accept groundless ideas and beliefs of others without critical reflection and reasoning.

Maybe your two-party dialectical failure to continue, relates to a proposed affliction resident in the “nominalism thought virus”. — Mww

Everyone couldn't fail to notice that it was neither a wise nor intelligent choice of the words in philosophical debate.

Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question. — Jack Cummins

Some folks seem to think the platonic objects do exist in the real world, but it seems to be the cause for the confusion. As you say Platonic objects are imaginable, thinkable and describable as ideas, but they are not solidly existing objects in the real world.

And sadly some folks seem to confuse the symbols and signs in the external world which are to convey the ideas and information as physical objects, so the ideas must exist in the real world as solid entities.

But if they are coming from some religious background or upbringings, then maybe the confusion originates from their historical living experiences rather than their thoughts. Therefore would it be reasonable to say that the historical living experiences take priority in judgements over thoughts?

It is futile. ... There is no reason to continue this discussion. It is a waste of the value in good and necessary dialogue. — Mapping the Medium

Ok, fair enough. I declare the same. Please don't write poems in philosophical debates. That is my advice to you.

..... My answer to your question? ... Yes. The causality of semiosis occurs and is present in the external world. — Mapping the Medium

The meaning of exist from English dictionary seem too wide and loose. Of course people use words in all sort of different contexts and meanings in ordinary life. You could use exist to mean even a lot more different things if you were writing poems.

But if you were to reason for logical arguments, then I think it would be better to narrow it down the meanings of words you use into concrete and solid definitions. That process is what philosophy and logic must do.

And this does not exist in the external world? ... Consider that the next time you try to maneuver city traffic without traffic lights and signs. — Mapping the Medium

Of course things exist in the external world. I was not denying that. The traffic lights exist, and when the red light is showing, you must stop, and wait. But that is the legal contract and instruction you must abide in order to drive in the town. If you break that contract and instruction, then you will be in trouble physically and legally.

That contract and instruction is a form of information and knowledge given to you and you are aware of it, which causes you to stop when you see the red light at the traffic. The idea of the legal and civil contract is in the form of idea which you know of in your mind. It is not an external entity or existence.

We are using the physical device (the traffic light with red yellow green) as a sign post to convey the information and contract which is mental in nature.

My usage of the word 'narrative':
A causality of semiosis that results in a representamen of a situation or process, and in such a way as to reflect or conform to an overarching momentum. — Mapping the Medium

It still sounds a mental event or process resulted from perception and understanding. Would you say the narratives exist in the external world?

How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?. — Jack Cummins

Could it be the case that the world with many Gods would allow the people more freedom to choose which God to worship, therefore allow more creativity in arts, diversity and the way of life?

One God system might fall into an authoritarian society which restricts people's freedom to choose their preference in choosing their own Gods, and the way of life, and also creativity in arts, as from the historical fact of the medieval Christianity in Europe.

After the fall of the ancient Roman empire, the Christianity took over the control of the governments and justice system. The one God based religious authority has ruled the whole Europe with the iron fist controlling every part of human life for almost 1500 years.

Anyway, I'm not debating with you anymore as it's clearly not going to be worth the effort, plus you were needlessly rude. — Clearbury

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.

Manifested, presenting beings acting as catalysts within a grander narrative... and that narrative exists. Otherwise, there would be no manifestation (existence), of whichever category we are speaking (Firstness Secondness Thirdness).
"The one intelligible theory of the universe is that of objective idealism, that matter is effete mind, inveterate habits becoming physical laws." - Charles Sanders Peirce — Mapping the Medium

Manifestation could be a good word for some abstract entities. Instead of saying "X exists", X manifested sounds more logical. I heard of some narratives, and I know some narratives, I could tell you a narrative for something, but narratives exist? I am not sure, if they exist anywhere in the world.

Why bother? ... Because of the necessity of being to becoming. That is the causality of semiosis. Thirdness in action. An open system is a living system. ... Take away Thirdness and all you have is static Secondness. The habits, laws, and momentum of Thirdness exists, and Thirdness is as real as any material object manifested in Secondness. I am speaking of manifestation in describing the word 'exist'. — Mapping the Medium

Maybe we could analyse different modes of existence? I still believe that physical existence is different from the conceptual existence. There are many entities and objects we describe as "existence" or "existing", but not visible or audible to our sensory organs such as God, Numbers and all the abstract entities. They only exist in our minds, and we just communicate about them and on them via language.

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. — Clearbury

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.

I am repeating myself, — Clearbury

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.

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: — Patterner

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.

Gravity, magnetism, entropy, thermodynamics,
... Do these not exist? ....... Only physical, touchable, material forms exist? I suppose so, that is if you only limit your perspective to Secondness. I do not. — Mapping the Medium

Good point. They don't exist at all. They are the inferred entity which were conceptualised. I don't deny the validity of the concepts. But they don't exist like the physical bodies.

Gravity applies to between objects, mass and the larger mass. It exerts in the energy form, but saying gravity exists? sounds superstitious, because it doesn't.

Remember this was what Hume said in his Treatise? There is no cause i.e. gravity. There are only the apples, and the ground. You see whenever the apple was released from the hand, it falls into the ground. And Newton inferred a force between the earth and apple, and named it as gravity. So it is an inferred concept called gravity out of the habit and custom to see the apple falling into the ground. There is no gravity. There is no cause.

And like all scientific theories and concepts, they are known to us by education and information. But they are to be toppled, denied and replaced when newly discovered theories and concepts are more making sense. Hence all scientific laws, principles, and concepts are temporary information until the newer ones replaced them. So why bother? Was it Popper who said it?

Hmm .... I haven't been on the 'forum' for several years, but this is a good starting place for me to jump back in. :grin:

'Abstractions' are a huge can of worms, and their wriggling is very real. ... It's how biological creatures understand and apply them that can either be very useful or very dangerous (we're stepping into that danger now with AI haphazard hypostatic abstraction). ... When you understand thought as a system, you cannot possibly dismiss its very real 'existence'. — Mapping the Medium

All thoughts are mental entities or operations, hence they are private to the thinker.  The ordinary folks would say thoughts exist, but it is a vague expression.  

When X exists, it means X is a being.  Being means it has a body to present itself to other beings.  Mental operations and thoughts don't have that type of presentation.  They are invisible not just to other minds, but also to the thinker too.

The thinker will know about the thought he / she has in their mind, but cannot see the presentation.  Thoughts are only expressed via the linguistic expressions to other minds.  Thoughts can also work as the causes for actions of the thinkers.   But they can never present themselves as existence i.e. they are not the presenting beings such as the bodily structures, or bodies in the physical world.

The ordinary folks would say thoughts exist, ideas exist, numbers exist, God exist, but these expressions are all incorrect logically and ontologically speaking.

They must be corrected to say, they know numbers, use numbers to count or calculate, and have an idea to sort out the problem, thought about the incidents, can infer or understand the concept of God, or they believe or don't believe in God ... etc.  

Only the beings which are presenting themselves in visual and touchable physical or material forms exist.  Nothing else exists. Not able to tell this difference and misusing the language describing all the mental entities, concept and events as existing is the cause for all the confusions in reasoning.

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. — Patterner

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.

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 — Patterner

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.

Do you have any support for this idea! — Patterner

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.