If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

haribol acharya
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:35 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by haribol acharya »

This question is untenable. For God is over and above all human attributes. This is a brainchild of the entity that suffers a thousand limitations. God is not an entity definable by human understanding and perceptions. The question you are asking born of your and of course it can be everybody's, doubtless, limited understanding of the nature of God. Anyway the question is appealing that gives a platform for discussion.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 »

haribol acharya wrote:
God is not an entity definable by human understanding and perceptions
One of the things that makes me smile whenever the question of God comes up is when those who believe in him tell those of us who
do not that we cannot use reason or logic to disprove his existence. And while it is true it apparently never occurs to them that they
equally cannot use them to prove it. If they could then those of us who do not believe would immediately believe and atheism from
that point on would be falsified. The reality is that nothing of the sort has happened and it is the reason why there are still atheists
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:49 am
Dontaskme wrote:
You trust your sense of being and your ability to reason and think as real
I do because I have no reason not to. Now that does not automatically mean my sense of being is real just that there is no evidence to
suggest other wise.
Knowing informs illusory reality simply because the knowing cannot be known. There is just silent still tacit ''knowingness''

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 3:49 amAnd that is what informs my decision on the matter. And indeed on all matters of a physical nature. You obviously
think differently but I have no control over how others think only how I think. But even if I am wrong and my sense of being is not real
and is in fact an illusion it is one so convincing that to all intents and purposes may as well be real. So either way I treat it as if it were
Here, you are agreeing that your sense of being is treated as if it were real ... well surprise surprise the one who visions that sense of being is the same one who visions the sense of God. The God people call that sense of being the all pervading boundless presence of God - the God people do not stamp a claim on this boundless presence as being their own personal identity ...that identity has been superimposed upon them by their parents, peers, or by their society.....their assumed identity is just one of an infinite amount of experiences of this boundless energy, it doesn't belong to anyone...drop the identified self, allow it to dissolve completely and you'll see that what's left is the unclaimed ''I AM''

Some people call that ''I Am'' God. When one rests in this immediate knowing - they are home in the arms of the beloved.

You see, God can't show up to his own shown unless you die. The one you perceive yourself to be that is....here in the following quote >

"The very act of perceiving reveals you are not that which is perceived." Nisargadatta Maharaj
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 5:19 am Although this is not set in stone as my mind can be changed at any time when there is justification for doing so

The my mind here in question is from a personal pinhole perspective only. Take off your google goggle perspective to see the whole picture.


The apostle John records in John 11:40 that Jesus said to His mother, Mary, “Didn’t I tell you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?” The secular mindset says, “See first, then believe.” But so often what God tells us to do is the opposite of human wisdom.


F.A.I.T.H

Forsaking
All
I
Trust
Him
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 »

I think reality and the perception of reality are not the same. Even though the latter is part of the former. Now if you define God as simply all
that exists and nothing else then by definition I would have to accept that God exists. Although I am under no obligation to if I do not want to
use that term. And I prefer the term reality which has less philosophical baggage attached to it although it is not completely devoid of it. And
in a purely physical non philosophical sense there is only one reality. But as many interpretations of it as there are beings capable of doing so
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Although this is not set in stone as my mind can be changed at any time
The my mind here in question is from a personal pinhole perspective only

Take off your google goggle perspective to see the whole picture
Did you not use your mind to think these words and if not then who or what was doing your thinking for you

Is not everything that you think your own personal pinhole perspective just as everything that I think is mine

What if you also have google goggle perspective [ whatever that is ]
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Dontaskme »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 10:01 am
Dontaskme wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Although this is not set in stone as my mind can be changed at any time
The my mind here in question is from a personal pinhole perspective only

Take off your google goggle perspective to see the whole picture
Did you not use your mind to think these words and if not then who or what was doing your thinking for you

Is not everything that you think your own personal pinhole perspective just as everything that I think is mine

What if you also have google goggle perspective [ whatever that is ]
No one has a mind...the idea ''my mind'' is just a pin hole perspective an ''appearance''

There has to be a mind existing for there to be an idea known.
User avatar
Vendetta
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2017 8:28 pm
Location: ehville

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Vendetta »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 8:05 am
haribol acharya wrote:
God is not an entity definable by human understanding and perceptions
One of the things that makes me smile whenever the question of God comes up is when those who believe in him tell those of us who
do not that we cannot use reason or logic to disprove his existence. And while it is true it apparently never occurs to them that they
equally cannot use them to prove it. If they could then those of us who do not believe would immediately believe and atheism from
that point on would be falsified. The reality is that nothing of the sort has happened and it is the reason why there are still atheists
You make very good points, and I have much appreciation for your openness to all points of view. And even from a theistic perspective, I have to agree. It is rational for one who has doubt in the existence of God to hold that point of view due to lack of personal, firsthand evidence. Especially when you consider the fact that this topic is not one that can easily be sorted out by reason and logic. The inability to prove is not solid proof against, as is the inability to disprove for. They are but appeals to ignorance. I feel it's understandable to not trust another's testimony of experience with God, as there is no way to know to certain whether it is truth-bound or not. However, I don't believe that those who are actively working against the idea of God will ever be open enough to recognise proof for his existence within their own lives, as the majority of them seem so rooted in their position that they are unwilling to even entertain the possibility.
As of now at least, it doesn't appear that there will be a huge, universal revelation that proves the existence of God for all. What one must do is be open to allow the Supreme the opportunity to reveal itself. But, if you do so and still find no proof, then of course you have all reason not to believe. Given the inherent untrustworthiness of the testimonies of others, perhaps your stance on the idea of God must be a decision for yourself that you make based on your interpretation of the evidence provided. But you can only reasonably come to a consensus once you've entertained and thoroughly considered both sides of the argument.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Dontaskme wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Dontaskme wrote:
The my mind here in question is from a personal pinhole perspective only

Take off your google goggle perspective to see the whole picture
Did you not use your mind to think these words and if not then who or what was doing your thinking for you

Is not everything that you think your own personal pinhole perspective just as everything that I think is mine

What if you also have google goggle perspective [ whatever that is ]
No one has a mind ... the idea my mind is just a pin hole perspective an appearance

There has to be a mind existing for there to be an idea known
Mind is a function of the brain and so anyone who is compos mentis has one

This includes those who have managed to convince themselves otherwise
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 4:24 am A phenomenon genuinely observed by one person would indeed be sufficient for them to think it happened. But it would not be sufficient for someone else that in the absence of evidence would be sceptical of it having happened. And also not all observations are genuinely observed Subjective interpretation can compromise the accuracy of the memory of the observer such as an altered mental state due to a psychological disorder or drugs. Or something relatively benign such as confirmation bias.
So far, I have to agree with you absolutely.
This is why all single person perspectives are scientifically invalid.
But not this. I think we have to separate the issue of "real" from the issue of "verifiable by others." It's certainly true that it's not often possible for us to validate the experience of another. But frequently enough, it's possible for us to get strong warrant for believing the account they provide, even if they are only one.

For example, if you told me that you flew to the moon by flapping your arms, I could perhaps not prove in an absolute way that you had not felt that you did, (maybe due to LSD) or even (in extremis) absolutely that you had not, since I was not present to witness anything: but I could reason that you could not -- that there was no likelihood of the physics and biology described being possible -- and I would have the best possible reasons for thinking that.

However, even that's not absolute. For if a Supreme Being had swept you up (supposing such to exist) then all bets in that regard would be off. I'd just be in a position to say I considered it unlikely...but I could no longer insist I knew you hadn't.

On the other hand, if you told me something more ordinary...like that your cat died, I would have insufficient reason to disbelieve you about that. Cats do die...I have seen them do so. And I cannot perhaps imagine you having a sufficient, reasonable motive for lying about it on this occasion. So even though you had seen it -- and I had not -- I would have sufficient warrant for believing you. Indeed, it would be a bit extraordinary for me to call your claim of the cat's mortality into question. I would need special additional reasons to do so.

The sum of my argument about single-person testimony is this: the decisive element is not the fact that only one person claimed to have seen the thing. That can be sufficient warrant. It won't be verifiable, for me, but I'd be less than rational to insist on disbelieving. The phenomenon the testifier describes to me could very well have happened -- but as a recipient of the testimony, all I can do is estimate the probability of the description, and then say that I was inclined to believe or to disbelieve it.

Now, with thedoc's experience: how do we estimate the probability that he really experienced something, and that that phenomenon itself was real? For unless we already know (for some reason we'd have to explain) that spiritual experiences cannot be genuine, then real it could be :shock: -- even if he were the only observer (though if I recall, he claims others too).
...scientists who are trained to be as bias free as possible...
It's the other kind that are worrisome...and not as infrequent as one would wish. :wink:

Look how long, for example, the "monkey-to-man" chart has persisted in textbooks and in the public imagination. And yet genetics has show us that any "common ancestor" cannot be a monkey, but rather would have to be back in the primordial ooze.

Now given that the monkey-to-man progressive theory is absolutely debunked scientifically now, we must find it quite extraordinary not to find an immediate and total scientific retraction of the idea. One would wish scientists to be very diligent about not allowing the public to persist in error...Alas, they are often not.

Science, like any other human endeavor, has a noble code of ethics in theory. But it is also staffed by human beings, with their own prejudices and political interests, and with susceptibility we all have to group-think and orthodoxy.

One would wish that the scientific method itself would render that impossible: but apparently, it does not. Look how long it took to establish "scientifically" that smoking is responsible for cancers. We all knew, long before the science was announced as settled, that there was going to be a strong connection. But politics and economics kept the scientists from setting forth the case with the requisite clarity, and contrary "scientists" employed by the tobacco companies kept issuing false reports. Today, the issue is still not as clear as it should be in many people's minds.

I think there's an analogy in "climate science" today. You may decide which side is faking the "science." Certainly, given their opposite claims, at least one side has to be.

So even in science, questions like "which scientists," "with what motives," and "with what certainty" remain to be answered before we invest trust. It's certainly not as clear as assuming that scientists are just people who are free of bias.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22265
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 11:34 am Mind is a function of the brain and so anyone who is compos mentis has one

This includes those who have managed to convince themselves otherwise
What do you mean when you say, "is a function of"? Do you mean, minds are brains? Or do you mean that minds are a distinct entity which nevertheless is co-ordinated with or housed in the brain?

It makes a big difference which claim you're implying. So I should ask.
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Dontaskme wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 10:22 am
surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 10:01 am
Dontaskme wrote:
The my mind here in question is from a personal pinhole perspective only

Take off your google goggle perspective to see the whole picture
Did you not use your mind to think these words and if not then who or what was doing your thinking for you

Is not everything that you think your own personal pinhole perspective just as everything that I think is mine

What if you also have google goggle perspective [ whatever that is ]
No one has a mind...the idea ''my mind'' is just a pin hole perspective an ''appearance''

There has to be a mind existing for there to be an idea known.
Those that believe such tripe are considered, "out of their mind."
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

haribol acharya wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 6:54 am This question is untenable. For God is over and above all human attributes. This is a brainchild of the entity that suffers a thousand limitations. God is not an entity definable by human understanding and perceptions. The question you are asking born of your and of course it can be everybody's, doubtless, limited understanding of the nature of God. Anyway the question is appealing that gives a platform for discussion.
There is neither credible proof nor evidence that your god exists, the entire story of your god is simply a house of cards! Prove otherwise!
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

surreptitious57 wrote: Fri May 19, 2017 8:05 am
haribol acharya wrote:
God is not an entity definable by human understanding and perceptions
One of the things that makes me smile whenever the question of God comes up is when those who believe in him tell those of us who
do not that we cannot use reason or logic to disprove his existence. And while it is true it apparently never occurs to them that they
equally cannot use them to prove it. If they could then those of us who do not believe would immediately believe and atheism from
that point on would be falsified. The reality is that nothing of the sort has happened and it is the reason why there are still atheists
But the 'burden of proof' lies with those that say that "leprechauns" (gods) exist. It never falls upon those that have never seen such invisible magical creatures.

When combining the studies of history, psychology, philosophy, anthropology, sociology and biology for that matter, it's easy to see why humans would create such false things to believe in. Fear of non survival, as staying alive in those times could be extremely challenging, was first and foremost in most of their minds, especially those that weren't a part of the ruling class; slaves! These people created gods for everything under, and including the sun, and prayed and performed rituals in their honor so as to please them, so their crops would grow, they would be successful in the hunt, they would have children, etc. The time in which many cultures reduced it down to one god, was a time of relative enlightenment, prosperity, and primitive technologies, farming, etc. Relatively, they believed they had beaten most problems, save one! DEATH!

To this day man fears death, and both Christianity and Islam promise life after death. It's easy to see why these people are still stuck in the past, unable to let go of their belief in an all powerful being, that they believe shall save them from death, even from themselves. FEAR, the mind killer! Often people freeze from rapid intense FEAR like a deer in headlights, if they have a brush with death, the collection plate becomes heavier, and they pray more to their god. It's also very apparent in prisons, where especially those on death row increasingly make an effort to find their maker, and pray.

In fact, people that still believe such things, are cowards. They can't stand on their own two feet and be counted. They have to have someone hold them up, to care for them, much like their mommy and daddy. It bolsters their self confidence, supports them when they fear anything. It doesn't matter that it physically does nothing. It's what, in the past I've called, "a mind fuck," but I wish I could come up with a phrase that says as much without a word that, "people don't like," "I don't like that, it's dirty, dirty I tell you" While both Lenny Bruce and George Carlin roll over in their graves. But I digress to make a parallel point! Denial works that way. One denies truths they don't want to acknowledge, so they can be bolstered by falsehoods!

Actually I feel sorry for those people, it's just a shame we've got to put up with them because their falsehoods have affected us in negative ways, time and time again, The Spanish Inquisition, Galileo, Hypatia, Giordano Bruno, etc. I say go somewhere and live by yourselves in your deluded little world, so you can't affect us good people, that hold truth more important than life itself! Begone crazy people, begone!
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: If God is omnipotent, can he destroy himself?

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
It is certainly true that it is not often possible for us to validate the experience of another. But frequently enough it is possible for us to
get strong warrant for believing the account they provide even if they are the only one
But you cannot apply this to the scientific method. The more exacting it is the less room for error. Hence why it has to be as brutal and uncompromising as possible. No single person perspective is scientifically valid. It has to be inter subjective to keep bias to an absolute
minimum. Even where the single person has evidence that will categorically demonstrate the truth claim they are making it still has to
be examined inter subjectively. It is the only way to know if it is true or not. Believing some one on the basis of plausibility is not good
enough for there has to be evidence and inter subjectivity. They are essential components of the scientific method not optional extras
Post Reply