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?

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. — Patterner

But there are the traditional deities such as the Christian God, the ancient Egyptian deities and the other Gods which we could have some clues from the existing holy texts and theologies, which we could make more reasonable inference and analogies.

Talking about a non-existing hypothetical being with omnipotence is not really going to take you anywhere. You would have far better ways wasting your time.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

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.

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 — Corvus

That's both rude and untrue.

You don't seem to know what 'omnipotent' means. it means 'all powerful'. It doesn't mean 'unable to die' . I am repeating myself, but you seem to be having difficulty grasping the point, despite it being quite straightforward. If an omnipotent person is 'unable' to do something, then they're not omnipotent. So you are the one who is demonstrably talking nonsense, as it is not in dispute that contradictions are nonsense and in asserting that an omnipotent person is unable to die you are asserting a contradiction.

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. — Corvus

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.

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.

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 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? — Corvus

Then you need to get out more (and maybe consult a dictionary while you're at it). It's what the term means. If you're using 'God' to refer to a brand of beetroot then you're just being misleading and tedious. Anyway, I'm not debating with you anymore as it's clearly not going to be worth the effort, plus you were needlessly rude.

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

Well, if you find someone telling you saying nonsense is rude, then you haven't lived, and definitely you haven't engaged in philosophical debates. 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.

To tell the truth, I knew right away first time when I read your post, you were not a genuine interlocutor anyway, and it proved right. It is better not to debate with folks who are not genuine debaters, and it suits me fine. Thank you. All the best & good luck.