NationStates Jolt Archive

Can God destroy himself? If so, then how? If not, then can we agree that he is not omnipotent?

Sure, if God wanted to destroy himself, he could. How? Any way he wanted to. God is able to destroy himself because he lives outside of logic. If he creates a set of rules to live by, why should he, being a supreme being, have to follow them?

Ouch. Pwnt (or so they say)

God is able to destroy himself because he lives outside of logic.

Not according to traditional Christian thought he doesn't.

He already did. He made an ounce of coke so addictive even he needed another line. His heart exploded three hours later during an orgy with a bunch of hot angels. It was a rock so heavy even god couldn't put it down.

Not according to traditional Christian thought he doesn't.

Yeah, you are right. But I think a majority of them would rather believe God is omnipotent than logical.

Sure, if God wanted to destroy himself, he could. How? Any way he wanted to. God is able to destroy himself because he lives outside of logic. If he creates a set of rules to live by, why should he, being a supreme being, have to follow them?

I agree that he can destroy himself, but it does not mean that he lives outside of logic. The idea of living outside of logic puts a definition on him and thus submits him to logical rigor.

He already did. He made an ounce of coke so addictive even he needed another line. His heart exploded three hours later during an orgy with a bunch of hot angels. It was a rock so heavy even god couldn't put it down.



ummm........



BLASPHEUME!!!

Yeah, you are right. But I think a majority of them would rather believe God is omnipotent than logical.

The arguement is not omnipotent vs. logical, its omnipotent vs. invincible.

Can God destroy himself? If so, then how? If not, then can we agree that he is not omnipotent?

This is just a variation on the "can God make a boulder so big god can't pick it up" conundrum, so we can agree that human language and logic have their limits, as this and similar questions demonstrates.

C. S. Lewis: “[God’s] omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense.”

I should clarify then. God could destroy himself (and with him, the universe) because he is omnipotent. To me, because I think does not have to be logical, this does not mean he is not invincible.

This is just a variation on the "can God make a boulder so big god can't pick it up" conundrum, so we can agree that human language and logic have their limits, as this and similar questions demonstrates.

C. S. Lewis: “[God’s] omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him, but not nonsense.”

Can God do something nonsensical?

creation and destruction are both concepts that are coupled with the idea that the subject exists within the parameters of time, such that, a thing could exist before, and then cease to exist afterwards.

God exists out side of the parameters of time, and as such, is not subject to the concept of destruction or creation

God's omnipotence, I believe, lies in God's ability to alter the parameters of things, however, in order to remain infallible, God must then abide by those parameters for as long (I use this lightly) as they are in place. Therefore, in order for God to abide by the parameters that God has set down, God is not subject to creation or destruction

Good one to argue about ....
two things came to mind ....
if in the understanding that (a, the) god's reasoning has more to do with a final plan that may greatly superceded the collected understanding of ours and/or several other "cognizant" species than i figure zim zum (not the musician) and/or the big crunch theory might support that kind of idea, as maybe that (those) god (s) have no better than a specific directive in mind with ultimate faculty as defined by the ultimatum of time (efficacy) and therefore being "omnipotent" (thinking a killing joke line, the chorus from "Mathematics of Chaos") .....
it also occurred to me that there may be a (human) concept of displacement in "evolution" during the function of society and individuals "selected" by god (s) to "correct" what god (s) hath seen as "errors" within its own system and thus being willing to snip the nose to spite the face ... maybe god (s) are looking to construct/instruct the perfect adversary as worthy of such dire and lavish attention .... as the old testament went there was quite an emotional tempest involved in the fate (s) of "man" and many were slain although they were still borne from the same god (s), loving or otherwise, and someone could argue that the ultimate fulfillment of love for that/those god (s) came through in the crucifixion. One might further argue that the ultimate love under this theory is a mutually appreciative destruction.
Just some musings, not looking to start a religion, although this is a great topic IMHO. Much of the above might be a bit restricted to Judeo-Christian and possibly Hindu influence although i hadn't thought it out quite that far.
Fnord

I should clarify then. God could destroy himself (and with him, the universe) because he is omnipotent. To me, because I think does not have to be logical, this does not mean he is not invincible.

The problem with this is that you are giving God the title of invincibility, and saying that its just a title, and not actually true.

God can destroy himself, obviously, because he is omnipotent. So he can do anything.

He has not however chosen to do so.

(Much like I can shoot myself If I so choose, but I have not.)

Question: Can God commit suicide?

Answer: rudibaga

(for more see Japanese Zen Buddhist koans)

Can I? Yes. Would I? No.

God can destroy himself, obviously, because he is omnipotent. So he can do anything.

He has not however chosen to do so.

(Much like I can shoot myself If I so choose, but I have not.)

This is the most straightfoward answer I've ever seen from these types of discussions. Thanks.

whitehead's god couldn't destroy himself.

as whitehead's god can only do good (it's not omnipotent) and in whitehead's philosophy, good is creative and evil is destructive, since god can only do good, god cannot destroy.

of course, in whitehead's philosophy, if god goes down so do the rest of us.

whitehead's god couldn't destroy himself.

as whitehead's god can only do good (it's not omnipotent) and in whitehead's philosophy, good is creative and evil is destructive, since god can only do good, god cannot destroy.

of course, in whitehead's philosophy, if god goes down so do the rest of us.

Interesting answer :)

This is the most straightfoward answer I've ever seen from these types of discussions. Thanks.

just because it's straightforward doesn't make it right, or logical.


it puts god within the boundaries of time, thus limiting god's omnipotence

Let us put these

Can G-d (insert some stupid paradox)?

G-d can do anything..... G-d can give himseld constipation... G-d can eat a bunny while skinning it alive.

G-d Can drink and Drive
Smoke and Fly
Swim after eating 30 minutes if he wanted to!

G-d can do anything..... The only question on G-d is if he exists... No-one can answer this question but G-d himself, it takes faith to believe that he exists, and takes faith to believe that he doesnt.

I could prove to you that Gravity doesn't exist, and it's just an elaborate scheme created by aliens to kill us whenever we try to walk off a cliff.

None of you can disprove it.... You can claim some invisible force... But i say Aliens are trying to prevent us from our future goal.... Walking on Water!

Just like Jesus did! Pissed the aliens off so much, they had to kill him, so he wouldn't teach the secrets!

And that's why we celebrate Columbus day! :) Or should i say Leif Erikson Day? -.^

Note: yes i know the end was pretty much of a rant full of stupidity, but it still proves there are things that no-one can ever disprove or prove. :p

whitehead's god couldn't destroy himself.

as whitehead's god can only do good (it's not omnipotent) and in whitehead's philosophy, good is creative and evil is destructive, since god can only do good, god cannot destroy.

of course, in whitehead's philosophy, if god goes down so do the rest of us.


Who is whitehead. Blackhead's nemesis?

just because it's straightforward doesn't make it right, or logical.


it puts god within the boundaries of time, thus limiting god's omnipotence

It is logical, as is also the fellow's discussion of whitehead's philosophy.

None of these arguements can be right or wrong, only valid or invalid.

What does time have to do with it? Unless you mean being able to drop around through time, but I still don't see how that would hamper the arguement. [Plus, if you agree that god is all knowing then God knows whats going to happen in the future and can plan ahead, eliminating a need for time-travel. Unless God is mortal, then he needs time travel in order to get everything straight in the universe before he dies.] Alas that last thread of thought cannot be compatible with whitehead's philosophy as was posted unless god's lifespan is at least as much as the universe's age at this very moment. Or at least humanity's age at this very moment.

I could prove to you that Gravity doesn't exist, and it's just an elaborate scheme created by aliens to kill us whenever we try to walk off a cliff.
........
None of you can disprove it.... You can claim some invisible force... But i say Aliens are trying to prevent us from our future goal.... Walking on Water!
........
Note: yes i know the end was pretty much of a rant full of stupidity, but it still proves there are things that no-one can ever disprove or prove. :p

some arguments are better than others

some are logically incoherent

you can never "prove" anything to be an absolute truth, but you can "prove" some things not to be truth

you can never "prove" anything to be an absolute truth, but you can "prove" some things not to be truth

Yes you can, pythagaros theorem for example, or the fundamental theorem of calculus. They are both absolute truths.

Let us put these

Can G-d (insert some stupid paradox)?

G-d can do anything..... G-d can give himseld constipation... G-d can eat a bunny while skinning it alive.

G-d Can drink and Drive
Smoke and Fly
Swim after eating 30 minutes if he wanted to!

G-d can do anything..... The only question on G-d is if he exists... No-one can answer this question but G-d himself, it takes faith to believe that he exists, and takes faith to believe that he doesnt.

I could prove to you that Gravity doesn't exist, and it's just an elaborate scheme created by aliens to kill us whenever we try to walk off a cliff.

None of you can disprove it.... You can claim some invisible force... But i say Aliens are trying to prevent us from our future goal.... Walking on Water!

Just like Jesus did! Pissed the aliens off so much, they had to kill him, so he wouldn't teach the secrets!

And that's why we celebrate Columbus day! :) Or should i say Leif Erikson Day? -.^

Note: yes i know the end was pretty much of a rant full of stupidity, but it still proves there are things that no-one can ever disprove or prove. :p

Perhaps a little more explanation would be desired, but your arguement would be logically valid. The purpose of this discussion is not to prove or disprove anything definite, but only to find the logical conclusions we can make from the subtle assumptions in our minds.

The purpose of this discussion can also be to analyze those assumptions as well. But if we were to analyze the assumptions I would much rather a discussion about why or why not to accept the assumptions rather than just pointing out that they are assumptions.

I read a funny SF-Story based on this question.

I think there is no posible answer.

1. God is almighty
2. God has no beginning and no end
3. If God is able to destroy God, then God has a potential end
4. God has no end


In the SF-story the author supposed God wanted to die but was not able because he is indestructible. So he created Humans in order to see if they could find a way to kill him. The humans came after their dead to paradise and had there a lot of time to think how they coul kill God.

It is logical, as is also the fellow's discussion of whitehead's philosophy.

None of these arguements can be right or wrong, only valid or invalid.

What does time have to do with it? Unless you mean being able to drop around through time, but I still don't see how that would hamper the arguement. [Plus, if you agree that god is all knowing then God knows whats going to happen in the future and can plan ahead, eliminating a need for time-travel. Unless God is mortal, then he needs time travel in order to get everything straight in the universe before he dies.] Alas that last thread of thought cannot be compatible with whitehead's philosophy as was posted unless god's lifespan is at least as much as the universe's age at this very moment. Or at least humanity's age at this very moment.

God does not have a life span, God has no need to "see into the future" or "time travel", God exists outside of the parameters of time. If God existed within the parameters of time, then God would not be omnipotent. As such, it is illogical to apply creation or destruction to God, because they are subject to time.

Yes you can, pythagaros theorem for example, or the fundamental theorem of calculus. They are both absolute truths.

Only if God isn't messing with our minds. :P

Only if God isn't messing with our minds. :P

Now there is a question.

Can God construct a plane tri-angle with interior angles adding up to 400 degrees.

Who is whitehead. Blackhead's nemesis?
Haha
Of course, they may be the same, depending on the time of day and the casting of shadows ..... *shudder*

Perhaps a little more explanation would be desired, but your arguement would be logically valid. The purpose of this discussion is not to prove or disprove anything definite, but only to find the logical conclusions we can make from the subtle assumptions in our minds.

The purpose of this discussion can also be to analyze those assumptions as well. But if we were to analyze the assumptions I would much rather a discussion about why or why not to accept the assumptions rather than just pointing out that they are assumptions.

Unfortuantly we cannot put Logic into G-d... That is the ultimate paradox.... Think of it like this... Pretend we're bits of data in a computer, and G-d is the 1337 Hacker that can do whatever he wants.

We as data, think that whatever we see is always constantly true... and they can never be changed.... But then out comes G-d who suddenly decides to turn Duke Nukem into a ballerina, and changes the calculator output so no matter what you put, it always gives you the answer of 1.

So you see, my point is, G-d can do whatever he wants.. he can edit what we see as normal logic, that is why Logic doesn't work on him. He created the "program" and he can edit it to his liking. You can suddenly wake up one day with a fish for a brain, and think it was totally normal..., because he wants you to think it's normal.

I'm sure you can understand what i mean by all this.

Now there is a question.

Can God construct a plane tri-angle with interior angles adding up to 400 degrees.

Yes, but would we be able to see or understand it?

Yes you can, pythagaros theorem for example, or the fundamental theorem of calculus. They are both absolute truths.

I believe that it is impossible to prove something to be entirely true

firstly because I do not believe that circular logic proves something to be true

and secondly, because since circular logic is not valid, then any logical argument one would use to prove something to be true would recede infinitely backwards, since axioms are assumed true

ex. I want to prove x, in order for x to be true, y and z must be true, so now we must prove that y and z are true, and come up with new axioms, etc etc

you have to start with an assumption

I believe that it is impossible to prove something to be entirely true

firstly because I do not believe that circular logic proves something to be true

and secondly, because since circular logic is not valid, then any logical argument one would use to prove something to be true would recede infinitely backwards, since axioms are assumed true

ex. I want to prove x, in order for x to be true, y and z must be true, so now we must prove that y and z are true, and come up with new axioms, etc etc

you have to start with an assumption

Neither of the above theorem's depend upon circular logic. They are derived from a set of definitions. Thus they are absolutely true for all cases.

(Of course, that is not to say that they have any proven corespondence with RL, however)

Yes, but would we be able to see or understand it?

I'm not sure, wouldn't he have to wreck geometry to do it. And if so, wouldn't he then have to put it back, cancelling out his triangle.

I'll have to think about this one for a while.

Neither of the above theorem's depend upon circular logic. They are derived from a set of definitions. Thus they are absolutely true for all cases.

(Of course, that is not to say that they have any proven corespondence with RL, however)

well they do begin with the axiom that logic is valid

and probably stuff like, the universe is objective

stuff that we take for granted

Can God destroy himself? If so, then how? If not, then can we agree that he is not omnipotent?

God destroyed His son, which was Him... so, yes, He can destroy Himself.

God destroyed His son, which was Him... so, yes, He can destroy Himself.

an example of god's ability to manipulate parameters

Yes you can, pythagaros theorem for example, or the fundamental theorem of calculus. They are both absolute truths.

Hey, how about you throw your theorem into a black hole? It's gone poof, since dimensions will vary incredibly: lenght, wideness, depth... Straight lines become curve, et cetera.

Not even that is absolute :D

Of course. If we measly humans can destroy ourselves, why couldn't a god commit suicide too?

Hey, how about you throw your theorem into a black hole? It's gone poof, since dimensions will vary incredibly: lenght, wideness, depth... Straight lines become curve, et cetera.

Not even that is absolute :D

But it doesn't apply to real triangles silly. Only geometrical ones. So it is always true. It's absolute.

an example of god's ability to manipulate parameters

Oh, good point. :headbang:

But it doesn't apply to real triangles silly. Only geometrical ones. So it is always true. It's absolute.

How can a geometrical triange not be real? And how can a real triangle not be geometrical?

Oh, btw, if we can imagine un-logical physical laws, doesn't it give them an existence, even an abstract one?

Can God destroy himself? If so, then how? If not, then can we agree that he is not omnipotent?
Hell is filled with people who ask stupid questions such as the above. Fear God and repent of your blasphemy or you will pay the consequences. This isn't a joke.

Hell is filled with people who ask stupid questions such as the above. Fear God and repent of your blasphemy or you will pay the consequences. This isn't a joke.

Your the reason people mock religion, religious people and are more likely to become Atheists...

If people talked to those who wanted to know about religion more seriously, and without words like "hell", "damnation" and "infidel". We would most likely have less Atheists, and they would instead be Agnostics or Deists.

At least that's what i believe, from that arguments i see from Atheists all the time.

Who is whitehead. Blackhead's nemesis?
Alfred North Whitehead. he was an american philosopher.

i'm reading his book Religion in the Making for my philosophy of religion class. I just wrote an essay about his conception of god (in religion in the making) yesterday.

apparnatly he gets less specific with his descriptions of god in later works though.

How can a geometrical triange not be real? And how can a real triangle not be geometrical?

Oh, btw, if we can imagine un-logical physical laws, doesn't it give them an existence, even an abstract one?

It's real only in the sense that it is a mathmatical construct. There is not necessarily a corespondence to RL. In other words, it is purely a construct of the mind.

(As can be seen if you lay out a triangle on a curved surface.)

Alfred North Whitehead. he was an american philosopher.

i'm reading his book Religion in the Making for my philosophy of religion class. I just wrote an essay about his conception of god (in religion in the making) yesterday.

apparnatly he gets less specific with his descriptions of god in later works though.

Okay cheers.

Is it any good? Should I read it?

But it doesn't apply to real triangles silly. Only geometrical ones. So it is always true. It's absolute.

it is absolute only within its set of initial parameters

those parameters are your axioms

Can God destroy himself? If so, then how? If not, then can we agree that he is not omnipotent?
sure God can destroy himself, how? Any way he wants to

Hell is filled with people who ask stupid questions such as the above. Fear God and repent of your blasphemy or you will pay the consequences. This isn't a joke.


"if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding; if you seek it like silver, and search for it as for hidden treasures- then you will understand the fear of the Lord AND FIND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;" proverbs 2.3-6

Now there is a question.

Can God construct a plane tri-angle with interior angles adding up to 400 degrees.

in curved space, sure.

in curved space, sure.

That's why I said plane, and 400 degrees.

That gets you both ways.

Edit: Though now I think of it, it should have been 600 degrees. (540 being the max, I think).

"if you indeed cry out for insight, and raise your voice for understanding; if you seek it like silver, and search for it as for hidden treasures- then you will understand the fear of the Lord AND FIND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD. For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding;" proverbs 2.3-6
The question was asked not in order to receive an answer but in order to negate the answer. You know it and I know it. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

The best discussion of religion (and the best presentation of Christianity) that I've ever read is in the book "The Brothers Karamazov" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. Read it, then send me a telegram and we can discuss it outside of this place :)

Okay cheers.

Is it any good? Should I read it?
it's pretty good, but it gets complicated at times... i'm only able to understand a bunch of it because my prof explains it then when i go back and read it it makes more sense.

i think the problem is the terminology he uses, he has his own definitions almost for some words, but the edition i have has a glossary so you can figure out the technical words.

what i really want to read is his science in the modern world, where he tries to reconcile relativity to the idea of god. this one (religion in the making) he's just kinda picking apart religion and examining it and describing his metaphysics.

That's why I said plane, and 400 degrees.

That gets you both ways.

Edit: Though now I think of it, it should have been 600 degrees. (540 being the max, I think).

but relative to a bug on the surface of the curved object, it is a plane. yet the angles still add to 400 degrees.

dun dun dun. reading the feynman lectures paid off somewhat.

The question was asked not in order to receive an answer but in order to negate the answer. You know it and I know it. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.


How does saying "Your going to hell for saying that" negate an answer... i'm curious.

The question was asked not in order to receive an answer but in order to negate the answer. You know it and I know it. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

nevertheless, I doubt Jesus would respond the way you did.

The question was asked not in order to receive an answer but in order to negate the answer. You know it and I know it. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.
well, they asked a question about the nature of god.

it is a legitimate question.

Your the reason people mock religion, religious people and are more likely to become Atheists...

If people talked to those who wanted to know about religion more seriously, and without words like "hell", "damnation" and "infidel". We would most likely have less Atheists, and they would instead be Agnostics or Deists.

At least that's what i believe, from that arguments i see from Atheists all the time.
Hogwash. People reject God because they love their sin. We supress the knowledge of God and worship the god of our own making (which is ourselves or someone like us). We are thankless and self serving. The verbiage of doom from Christians is no more the catalyst for the unbelief of Athiests than was the improper actions of slave traders and owners of years gone past, when a great number, according to God's plan, of the negro population from Africa were exposed to the Gospel, and having heard it, the elect were saved through it. God saves whom he will and he justly passes over the rest. The "rest" are still responsible, and "freely" reject God, acting as if they do not believe in Him, all the while KNOWING they will have to face him in judgement at the last day.

How does saying "Your going to hell for saying that" negate an answer... i'm curious.
No, silly, the QUESTION ITSELF "Can God destroy himself?" was asked NOT in order to actually recieve an answer, but in order to fight against it -- to negate it. My response of the warning of impending doom is exactly that. It negated nothing.

Unfortuantly we cannot put Logic into G-d... That is the ultimate paradox.... Think of it like this... Pretend we're bits of data in a computer, and G-d is the 1337 Hacker that can do whatever he wants.

We as data, think that whatever we see is always constantly true... and they can never be changed.... But then out comes G-d who suddenly decides to turn Duke Nukem into a ballerina, and changes the calculator output so no matter what you put, it always gives you the answer of 1.

So you see, my point is, G-d can do whatever he wants.. he can edit what we see as normal logic, that is why Logic doesn't work on him. He created the "program" and he can edit it to his liking. You can suddenly wake up one day with a fish for a brain, and think it was totally normal..., because he wants you to think it's normal.

I'm sure you can understand what i mean by all this.

come on dude
JUST SAY IT
say God
not G-d
your "o" button isn't broken so use it!!! :mad:

No, silly, the QUESTION ITSELF "Can God destroy himself?" was asked NOT in order to actually recieve an answer, but in order to fight against it -- to negate it. My response of the warning of impending doom is exactly that. It negated nothing.

Did you just call me silly..... -.^

anyways..... i heard these types of questions all the time at my Torah Class. And the answer is....

Rabbi: Of course G-d Can! G-d Can do whatever he wants to do! But what does that have to do with the Parsha of the week?

Silly rabbi... trying to avoid the question by going back on topic... :P even though he answered the question after class... damn him. -.-

but relative to a bug on the surface of the curved object, it is a plane. yet the angles still add to 400 degrees.

dun dun dun. reading the feynman lectures paid off somewhat.

Well I would argue that is *not* a plane triangle, more a function of the bugs perspective. And you know very well that that I was not talking about anyway.

But for the sake of argument, what about a triangle with the interior angles adding to 600 degrees.

come on dude
JUST SAY IT
say God
not G-d
your "o" button isn't broken so use it!!!

I was taught never to spell out G-d's name, no matter what language, and to always find an alternative, while implying it.

It's a core rule of Judaism... i think. Either way, that's what i was taught.

Does it really bother you so much, that i omit the o on purpose? No-one else seems to care...

God can't cause he is a pure good being and therefore could not abandon all his followers who need his help.

Well I would argue that is *not* a plane triangle, more a function of the bugs perspective. And you know very well that that I was not talking about anyway.

But for the sake of argument, what about a triangle with the interior angles adding to 600 degrees.

it could be argued that all things are functions of our own perspectives

well, they asked a question about the nature of god.

it is a legitimate question.
It is NOT a legitimate question, it's a STUPID question. It's as stupid as the question "If God is all powerful, does that mean he can create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" It's a questions designed to END a conversation, NOT to begin one. ONLY if it were a question from the lips of a child would it be a legitimate question.

The answer plain and simple is that God is incapable of sinning, which proves he is ALL powerful, because no other being is capable of being sinless. Only those whom God sovereignly preserves from sin (elect angels and glorified human beings) are sinless in the likeness (though not exactness, since it is dependent upon God) of God. God is incapable of doing that which is useless and without goodness. The Westminster Shorter Catechism describes God thusly: "God is a spirit; infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." He is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in each of those attributes. This definition of the attributes of God is distilled from the Scriptures, the whole Word of God. It is what God's people believe about him.

I was taught never to spell out G-d's name, no matter what language, and to always find an alternative, while implying it.

It's a core rule of Judaism... i think. Either way, that's what i was taught.

Does it really bother you so much, that i omit the o on purpose? No-one else seems to care...

if you are not saying it in vain,
why not say God or write it down (in this case typing it)
I was aware it is only wrong to say God as a curse

doesn't bother me too much i guess I just thought it was kinda strange

Hogwash. People reject God because they love their sin. We supress the knowledge of God and worship the god of our own making (which is ourselves or someone like us). We are thankless and self serving. The verbiage of doom from Christians is no more the catalyst for the unbelief of Athiests than was the improper actions of slave traders and owners of years gone past, when a great number, according to God's plan, of the negro population from Africa were exposed to the Gospel, and having heard it, the elect were saved through it. God saves whom he will and he justly passes over the rest. The "rest" are still responsible, and "freely" reject God, acting as if they do not believe in Him, all the while KNOWING they will have to face him in judgement at the last day.
someone doesn't get out much.

i don't know that i'm facing anyone on judgement day. as far as i know, i'm not. as far as i know, there is no judgement day. as far as i know, this is the only life i get.

now, would you still like to continue to act like an ostrich with its head in the sand* or woudl you like to actually learn about other people.


*yes, i'm well aware that ostriches don't actually do that.

it could be argued that all things are functions of our own perspectives

Not geometry. That's the point. It exists only as a product of definitions.

Can God destroy himself? This is a pointless question.

God is a perfected, glorified being who would never conceive of destroying Himself. There is no way to answer to this illogical question.

Let's keep in mind, however, that our God (Elohim) is subject to laws, just as we are. Godhood is a state of being...a title...similar to 'Fatherhood.' Our God, or Father, is a specific, sentient being with a physical body and a unique personality. It's true that He created the Universe and everything in it, but He did this by organizing matter which was unorganized (meaning that He did not create matter) what's more, His power and authority to create is derived from universal principles and laws (also known as Priesthood). Our Creator is not above Universal laws, but is rather subject to them, albeit in a much greater capacity than we are in our present, mortal and fallen state.

Did you just call me silly..... -.^

anyways..... i heard these types of questions all the time at my Torah Class. And the answer is....

Rabbi: Of course G-d Can! G-d Can do whatever he wants to do! But what does that have to do with the Parsha of the week?

Silly rabbi... trying to avoid the question by going back on topic... :P even though he answered the question after class... damn him. -.-
Which only proves that the Rabbi who gave you that answer neither knows God nor knows his Word.

i don't think that's the point, god wouldn't be that clueless to destroy him self for any reason at all, :headbang: :confused: since he is the one having the power to control everything. :D

Can God destroy himself? This is a pointless question.

God is a perfected, glorified being who would never conceive of destroying Himself. There is no way to answer to this illogical question.

Let's keep in mind, however, that our God (Elohim) is subject to laws, just as we are. Godhood is a state of being...a title...similar to 'Fatherhood.' Our God, or Father, is a specific, sentient being with a physical body and a unique personality. It's true that He created the Universe and everything in it, but He did this by organizing matter which was unorganized (meaning that He did not create matter) what's more, His power and authority to create is derived from universal principles and laws (also known as Priesthood). Our Creator is not above Universal laws, but is rather subject to them, albeit in a much greater capacity than we are in our present, mortal and fallen state.
Well, wasn't that a load of Mormon heresy?

I was taught never to spell out G-d's name, no matter what language, and to always find an alternative, while implying it.

It's a core rule of Judaism... i think. Either way, that's what i was taught.

Does it really bother you so much, that i omit the o on purpose? No-one else seems to care...

I thought it was some new slang way of saying the G-man's name. I am not in the know with all of your hip-hoppity languages... :)

You can be omnipotent and logical. 'Omnipotent' simply means that you can be and see everything simultaneously and can use universal power. To control such power requires logic.

Well, wasn't that a load of Mormon heresy?

...if you wish to call it heresy :)

someone doesn't get out much.

i don't know that i'm facing anyone on judgement day. as far as i know, i'm not. as far as i know, there is no judgement day. as far as i know, this is the only life i get.

now, would you still like to continue to act like an ostrich with its head in the sand* or woudl you like to actually learn about other people.


*yes, i'm well aware that ostriches don't actually do that.
You know good and well in your inner being that you and I and Adolf Hitler are going to give an account of our lives to God. You suppress the little bit of knowledge that is inherent in the imagio Dei of each human being, though that image is completely marred. You know of the nights when you can't sleep and you think about the infinite questions as you stare at the ceiling. You know good and well that the you that lives in your body cannot bear the notion that someone like Adolf Hitler will get off "scott free" for the monstrous things he did. You can say you don't all you want, but I know that you are only saying it because you wish to retain your stand.

...if you wish to call it heresy :)
It has nothing to do with what I "wish" to call it. It is what it is. That sort of false doctrine has been condemned by Godly councils throughout church history. The many faceted heresies that you've promoted in a single paragraph have been tried and found wanting over and over. It took a wicked and selfish man like Joseph Smith to repopularize ancient heresies, and because people are ignorant and do not read their Bibles, and do not submit to the teaching of the Apostles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit of the past 2000 years of church history is precisely why the same heresies pop up over and over again.

God is not a "perfected" being. He has always been and always will be. Try reading the quote from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and see what the church of Christ actually believes and compare it to what heretics such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught about God. You will find a gaping chasm between the two. The latter are now IN the chasm and ever shall be.

It is NOT a legitimate question, it's a STUPID question. It's as stupid as the question "If God is all powerful, does that mean he can create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" It's a questions designed to END a conversation, NOT to begin one. ONLY if it were a question from the lips of a child would it be a legitimate question.
there's no such thing as stupid questions. the only stupid thing to do is not to ask a question when you have one.

furthermore, the rock question can bring about much philosophic discussion, or inner contemplation. it's like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" almost. it can bring much debate.

The answer plain and simple is that God is incapable of sinning, which proves he is ALL powerful, because no other being is capable of being sinless.
what does sin have to do with killing oneself or for that matter, creating a rock too heavy to lift?

if someone had asked this question about the q (star trek refrence) would you be so offended? 'cause they can't kill themselves as they're immortal.

Only those whom God sovereignly preserves from sin (elect angels and glorified human beings) are sinless in the likeness (though not exactness, since it is dependent upon God) of God. God is incapable of doing that which is useless and without goodness.
what if, in his infinite wisdom, this god saw that it was fit that it should not continue to exist?
what if there was some way in which god's continued existence would cause more harm than good in the world? could god self destruct?

you're not really answering this question, you're reacting emotionally and unnecessairly to a simple question that really isn't offensive in the least. not to mention that it's more of a question to which you're supposed to end up being like "ah... " and have some realization afterwards.

The Westminster Shorter Catechism describes God thusly: "God is a spirit; infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." He is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in each of those attributes. This definition of the attributes of God is distilled from the Scriptures, the whole Word of God. It is what God's people believe about him.
then why is the god in the old testament so different from the god in the new testament?

You know good and well in your inner being that you and I and Adolf Hitler are going to give an account of our lives to God.
no i don't. i sincerely don't know. i sincerely don't know whether or not there is a god to start with.

You suppress the little bit of knowledge that is inherent in the imagio Dei of each human being, though that image is completely marred.
what?

You know of the nights when you can't sleep and you think about the infinite questions as you stare at the ceiling. You know good and well that the you that lives in your body cannot bear the notion that someone like Adolf Hitler will get off "scott free" for the monstrous things he did.
well, i do think that attempting genocide is something one shouldn't get off scott free for... which is why reinarnation is a good idea that seems to make sense. you're not condemned permanently for your mistakes, but you have to work them off.

You can say you don't all you want, but I know that you are only saying it because you wish to retain your stand.
well, since you already have your mind made up about what i believe even though i've said what to you so far? not a hell of a lot.

so uh yeah, do you enjoy judging people incessantly and making false assumptions about people you don't know?

i wonder how many false assumptions you've made about that god of yours?

there's no such thing as stupid questions. the only stupid thing to do is not to ask a question when you have one.

furthermore, the rock question can bring about much philosophic discussion, or inner contemplation. it's like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?" almost. it can bring much debate.
There is no such thing as the sound of "one hand clapping" as it necessarily takes two hands to clap (though one might use one hand and a thigh, etc). It is a stupid question that is designed to bring about nothing but the imaginations of men rather than rational thought.


what does sin have to do with killing oneself or for that matter, creating a rock too heavy to lift?
Because only a sinful creature would do something as stupid as that!

if someone had asked this question about the q (star trek refrence) would you be so offended? 'cause they can't kill themselves as they're immortal.
Q isn't a real person and proves that he, she, it could not possibly exist being all powerful becuase it has no morals. It denies the absolute and embraces relativism. It proves that it is not all powerful by having to change. God is infinite, eternal and unchageable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. There is no comparison.

what if, in his infinite wisdom, this god saw that it was fit that it should not continue to exist?
what if there was some way in which god's continued existence would cause more harm than good in the world? could god self destruct?
Only a sinful, and stupid god would see fit, and do as such. The God of the Bible, who IS infinite eternal and unchangeable in all the attributes quoted above is incapable of seeing fit of anything of the sort. READ THE DESCRIPTION. NOTE THAT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANY IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE ALMIGHTY. You do not have the right to invent whatever attributes of God you wish for him to have. He has declared them clearly in his Word and in the person of Jesus Christ. Do you wish to call Christ a liar now?

you're not really answering this question, you're reacting emotionally and unnecessairly to a simple question that really isn't offensive in the least. not to mention that it's more of a question to which you're supposed to end up being like "ah... " and have some realization afterwards.
The only people who have a "realization" afterwards are those who never knew the answer in the first place. If I told you that babies come from a stork, but you knew good and well that babies come from their mothers "tummies", and I thought you needed to end up being like "ah..." and have some realization afterwards, you'd instantly know that I was a fool.


then why is the god in the old testament so different from the god in the new testament?
The God of the OT is the same God of the NT. There is no difference in Him, only in what he reveals of himself. Remember, Jesus taught more on Hell than he did on Heaven. There is plenty of judgement in the NT and plenty of grace in the OT. The Word is not broken -- it is not divided. God is the same today, yesterday and forever.

well, i do think that attempting genocide is something one shouldn't get off scott free for... which is why reinarnation is a good idea that seems to make sense. you're not condemned permanently for your mistakes, but you have to work them off.

Well, according to the religion from whence ye get thy notions of reincarnation, you know that if you are a good woman, in your next life, you will come back as a cow, and if you are a good cow, then perhaps you will come back as a bad man.

False religions are oppressive.

It is a stupid question that is designed to bring about nothing but the imaginations of men rather than rational thought.
again, the only stupid question is one that is unasked.

Because only a sinful creature would do something as stupid as that!
now that's a silly answer.

Q isn't a real person and proves that he, she, it could not possibly exist being all powerful becuase it has no morals. It denies the absolute and embraces relativism. It proves that it is not all powerful by having to change. God is infinite, eternal and unchageable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth. There is no comparison.
umm.. right...

Only a sinful, and stupid god would see fit, and do as such. The God of the Bible, who IS infinite eternal and unchangeable in all the attributes quoted above is incapable of seeing fit of anything of the sort. READ THE DESCRIPTION. NOTE THAT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR ANY POSSIBILITY OF ANY IRRATIONAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE ALMIGHTY. You do not have the right to invent whatever attributes of God you wish for him to have. He has declared them clearly in his Word and in the person of Jesus Christ. Do you wish to call Christ a liar now?
so if it was a rational decision then?
and why would i call jesus a liar. i met a guy on the bus named jesus, he seemed like a nice enough guy. i don't know what he has to do with this discussion on god though.

Well, according to the religion from whence ye get thy notions of reincarnation, you know that if you are a good woman, in your next life, you will come back as a cow, and if you are a good cow, then perhaps you will come back as a bad man.
which religion with reincarnation?
hindhuism? buddhism? various pagan religions? native american religions?

you'll have to be more specific.

False religions are oppressive.
women shall not have authority over men for it is a disgrace.

women shall remain silent in the churches for it is disgraceful for her to speak. if she has a question, she may ask her husband at home.

yeah, you got that right. false religions are oppressive.

It's a questions designed to END a conversation, NOT to begin one. ONLY if it were a question from the lips of a child would it be a legitimate question.

The answer plain and simple is that God is incapable of sinning, which proves he is ALL powerful, because no other being is capable of being sinless. Only those whom God sovereignly preserves from sin (elect angels and glorified human beings) are sinless in the likeness (though not exactness, since it is dependent upon God) of God. God is incapable of doing that which is useless and without goodness. The Westminster Shorter Catechism describes God thusly: "God is a spirit; infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." He is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in each of those attributes. This definition of the attributes of God is distilled from the Scriptures, the whole Word of God. It is what God's people believe about him.
If it's not a legitimate question, why did you just try to answer it? I guess we're all supposed to know that your view is right (And that it exists, of course) and not ask a question that might help us understand something about God?

Can God destroy himself? If so, then how? If not, then can we agree that he is not omnipotent?

An immortal being cannot commit suicide because he is an immortal being. That's just a foolish question. I don't think He would be omnipotent if He commited suicide because then he would cease to be omnipotent. That's just an idiots question.

An immortal being cannot cease to be. That's just a foolish question.
if he's omnipotent, can't he make himself mortal and then kill himself?

The problem with people these days is that they think that they can understand absolutely everything in the world. I know i'll get called nieve for this but how can humans expect to understand every aspect of God's exisitance? there are some questions that can not be answered because we lack the wisdom and insight to understand them.
Thats what I think anyway.

Jesus died and rose again on the third day as the perfect sacrifice for our sins.

14 Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil,
15 and release those who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For indeed He does not give aid to angels, but He does give aid to the seed of Abraham.
17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

John 12:24 "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain."-Jesus

Maybe deep down inside you are really asking for salvation. Which has already been given to us who believe.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
17 "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
18 "He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

John 15:11 "These things I have spoken to you, that My joy may remain in you, and that your joy may be full.
12 "This is My commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
13 "Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one's life for his friends.-Jesus

if he's omnipotent, can't he make himself mortal and then kill himself?

see, begining of thread.

and what about my 600 degree triangle.

Yes you can, pythagaros theorem for example, or the fundamental theorem of calculus. They are both absolute truths.

AHA! You're in my field now! Note my user name... NOTE IT!

Enough with the self-empowered power trip.

But seriously, they are not absolute truths. They are based on axioms and postulates. The fundamental theorem of calculus is pretty complicated (as in would take over 20 minutes to prove it), so I won't discuss it, but as for the pythagorean theorem, it is only true if you assume all 5 of euclid's postulates, the most controversial of which is "given a line that crosses two lines, the two lines will meet on the side of the transversal whose interior angles are less than two right angles."

Unfortuantly we cannot put Logic into G-d... That is the ultimate paradox.... Think of it like this... Pretend we're bits of data in a computer, and G-d is the 1337 Hacker that can do whatever he wants.

We as data, think that whatever we see is always constantly true... and they can never be changed.... But then out comes G-d who suddenly decides to turn Duke Nukem into a ballerina, and changes the calculator output so no matter what you put, it always gives you the answer of 1.

So you see, my point is, G-d can do whatever he wants.. he can edit what we see as normal logic, that is why Logic doesn't work on him. He created the "program" and he can edit it to his liking. You can suddenly wake up one day with a fish for a brain, and think it was totally normal..., because he wants you to think it's normal.

I'm sure you can understand what i mean by all this.

The fact that you can explain it to me like that shows that we can reason about traits of God.

Now there is a question.

Can God construct a plane tri-angle with interior angles adding up to 400 degrees.

Sure, on a spherical plane.

If windows can't delete itself, I would think that God, the universes operating system, would not be able to either.

This arguement has actually made me stupider

No, silly, the QUESTION ITSELF "Can God destroy himself?" was asked NOT in order to actually recieve an answer, but in order to fight against it -- to negate it.

Don't be offended when I say that you've erred, because I had asked the question in order to receive answers, many of them.

Sure, on a spherical plane.


This has been gone through, and I have now modified it to get people both ways.

The triangle now has to have 600 degrees.

It is NOT a legitimate question, it's a STUPID question. It's as stupid as the question "If God is all powerful, does that mean he can create a rock so big that he can't lift it?" It's a questions designed to END a conversation, NOT to begin one. ONLY if it were a question from the lips of a child would it be a legitimate question.

The answer plain and simple is that God is incapable of sinning, which proves he is ALL powerful, because no other being is capable of being sinless. Only those whom God sovereignly preserves from sin (elect angels and glorified human beings) are sinless in the likeness (though not exactness, since it is dependent upon God) of God. God is incapable of doing that which is useless and without goodness. The Westminster Shorter Catechism describes God thusly: "God is a spirit; infinite, eternal and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth." He is infinite, eternal and unchangeable in each of those attributes. This definition of the attributes of God is distilled from the Scriptures, the whole Word of God. It is what God's people believe about him.

First of all, if you feel the only purpose of the question is to end conversation, then please stop conversing.

Second, you have unsuspectedly contributed something to the conversation by saying, "God is incapable of doing that which is useless and without goodness," and it didn't make you a dirty comme pinko godless gay fairy poof nonwhite.

Can God destroy himself? This is a pointless question.

God is a perfected, glorified being who would never conceive of destroying Himself. There is no way to answer to this illogical question.

Let's keep in mind, however, that our God (Elohim) is subject to laws, just as we are. Godhood is a state of being...a title...similar to 'Fatherhood.' Our God, or Father, is a specific, sentient being with a physical body and a unique personality. It's true that He created the Universe and everything in it, but He did this by organizing matter which was unorganized (meaning that He did not create matter) what's more, His power and authority to create is derived from universal principles and laws (also known as Priesthood). Our Creator is not above Universal laws, but is rather subject to them, albeit in a much greater capacity than we are in our present, mortal and fallen state.

Interesting! I'm curious, what is the physical representation of God? One might say Jesus, but it seems like you're talking about something more, something still around...

It has nothing to do with what I "wish" to call it. It is what it is. That sort of false doctrine has been condemned by Godly councils throughout church history. The many faceted heresies that you've promoted in a single paragraph have been tried and found wanting over and over. It took a wicked and selfish man like Joseph Smith to repopularize ancient heresies, and because people are ignorant and do not read their Bibles, and do not submit to the teaching of the Apostles, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit of the past 2000 years of church history is precisely why the same heresies pop up over and over again.

God is not a "perfected" being. He has always been and always will be. Try reading the quote from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and see what the church of Christ actually believes and compare it to what heretics such as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young taught about God. You will find a gaping chasm between the two. The latter are now IN the chasm and ever shall be.

Thank you for your condemnation. It's good to know that we Latter-Day Saints have not entirely escaped persecution from within the ecumenical theological circles, it keeps us humble. I can only respond bay saying that I believe your Catechism as apostate doctrine, filled with doctrines which were perveted for the political gain of the Papistry. The specific "godly councils" you speak of, in particular The Council of Nicene, was an apostasy from the teachings of the Disciples of Christ in the Meridian of time, as was most of what Constantine modified to fit his Romanized version of Christianity.

For what it's worth, I have read the New Testament. Twice, in fact. All teh way through. I have am also currently studying the Old Testament (am currently enjoying the Book of Joshua). Your insinuation that I am ignorant of scritpture is sadly unfounded. However, I would likely insinuate that you have not committed to a serious study of the Book of Mormon, assumedly out of predjudice, preconceived notions, and what you have been taught at the hands of men without the power and authority of God.

why is it if god could kill himself hes not omnipotent, he never would kill himself, but he could, anything is anything, hes omnipotent because no body else can kill him! and hes never going to kill himself, because thats a stupid thing to do, especially when your god.

just thought this thread could use some "levity"

A tale is told about a small town that had historically been "dry," but then a local businessman decided to build a tavern. A group of Christians from a local church were concerned and planned an all-night
prayer meeting to ask God to intervene.
It just so happened that shortly thereafter lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground.
The owner of the bar sued the church, claiming that the prayers of the congregation were responsible, but the church hired a lawyer to argue in court that they were not responsible.
The presiding judge, after his initial review of the case, stated that "no matter how this case comes out, one thing is clear.
The tavern owner believes in prayer and the Christians do not."

just thought this thread could use some "levity"

A tale is told about a small town that had historically been "dry," but then a local businessman decided to build a tavern. A group of Christians from a local church were concerned and planned an all-night
prayer meeting to ask God to intervene.
It just so happened that shortly thereafter lightning struck the bar and it burned to the ground.
The owner of the bar sued the church, claiming that the prayers of the congregation were responsible, but the church hired a lawyer to argue in court that they were not responsible.
The presiding judge, after his initial review of the case, stated that "no matter how this case comes out, one thing is clear.
The tavern owner believes in prayer and the Christians do not."


thats funny, but i somehow doubt that they were very good christians if this sorta thing happened to them...

ps. isnt there laws about acts of god? at least there are in insurance... or were, i dunno.

Edit: from re-reading the story.. i think those were very tight lawful christians. the kind who think alchohol is evil.. its not. we are allowed to drink(jesus drank wine!) just dont get drunk, thats a bad idea.

Interesting! I'm curious, what is the physical representation of God? One might say Jesus, but it seems like you're talking about something more, something still around...

The physical representation of God is that of man, although glorified and perfected. He has a body of flesh and bones. He showed a portion of his body (his back) to Moses. The Bible did not mislead us when it stated the man was created in His image. Likewise, the Bible did not lie when it stated that Christ is standing at his Right hand. Christ is not the Father. This is a teaching of apostasy from the creed established at the Council of Nicene. Christ is who he said he was, the only begotten son of the Father in flesh, and they are one, not in flesh, but in spirit, in thought, and in intent. Likewise, we are the children of Deity, though born of two earthly parents. Nonetheless we, like Christ, are heirs to the kingdom of God. The New Testament teaches us this.

This has been gone through, and I have now modified it to get people both ways.

The triangle now has to have 600 degrees.

Still yes, in Reimannian geometry. There are multiple concrete interpretations of it. I recommend my favorite math reference source, mathworld.wolfram.com

thats funny, but i somehow doubt that they were very good christians if this sorta thing happened to them...

ps. isnt there laws about acts of god? at least there are in insurance... or were, i dunno.

Edit: from re-reading the story.. i think those were very tight lawful christians. the kind who think alchohol is evil.. its not. we are allowed to drink(jesus drank wine!) just dont get drunk, thats a bad idea.

Funny part about it is that they are SO 'religious' so they didn't want a bar in town but also when it comes down to it apparentlly they don't even beleive in prayer

they werent too religious, they were probably too legalistic. people can have fun, just as long as they dont sin.

Tight lawful christians who think too many things are always evil and they shouldnt even go near them, like some medieval fantasy books and stuff are weak christians, why? because they are scared of it.

theres a verse in the bible talking about how its alright to eat muslim meat, its just meat, but dont do it in front of weak christians.

i think this applys to many other things in our day and age, like computer games and books. when it comes down to it though, you should simply decide whats wrong and whats right yourself and dont let other people judge you.


edit: anyway to sum it up, god COULD kill himself, but he never, EVER EVER EVER WOULD! its so much against his nature he literally cant do it, just like i couldnt kill my mother(though other people can kill their mothers sadly)

Still yes, in Reimannian geometry. There are multiple concrete interpretations of it. I recommend my favorite math reference source, mathworld.wolfram.com

No, because then it would cease to be planar, even assuming a curved surface.
:rolleyes:

Sort of a moot point. There is no God in the sense that people generally conceive of. Even most orthodoxists have gotten past the image of the bearded Giant residing in a clouded astral plane, but all the other traits given to God in general are nonsensical. It is not a being, it does not make value judgments, it does think or act. Such are only anthropomorphic traits lent by those whose erstwhile mindset can be displayed by the dominance of Geocentric theory. Primitive religions mixed the concept of the force creating the universe with a supervisory being which thinks we should act kind and fair, largely in order to have sway over the sheep who followed them. The Ten Commandments are the word of man misrepresented as that of God, an innocent and well-intentioned lie but no less a lie than Jesus's apotheosistic delusions. Jesus was a nice Jew who let his fame get to his head, eventually becoming a self-deluding demagogue who was able to persuade very impressionable and somewhat dull people into following his warped con-man megalomania. There were about 500 billion such mystery cults at the time, Christianity was simply one that succeeded. That people still believe such primitive explanations and blindly explain with "faith" that which can accurately be explained by science is only indicative of the general need of belonging and purpose, one of man's great weaknesses.

Atheism is equally foolish; the complexity of the human body, the unimaginable amount of factors that were required for life to exist on this planet and a host of other "coincidences" prove general chaos unlikely. Diseases, the innate desire for war and territoriality are largely here to prevent overpopulation, an innate desire sadly lacking from our collective psyche. The adaptation of animals, their existence in general has a purpose. Something is making it all work, but it's an unexplainable and inconceivable force, not some infallible human-like being with fatherly nurturing instincts. It cannot act, it cannot speak, it cannot lift an apple one inch off a table, it works in aeons and epochs, very slowly, and with discretion. It has not created limbo, heaven, and hell to punish or reward us based on the good or evil we do in our lives. Those are human concepts, not universal ones.

Our universe (or multiverse) is a fascinating amalgam of events, and the 18 billion year age given to it is incorrect. Red shift proves the universe is expanding, but it will also contract into the single atom from which it has expanded and contracted, much like a star's cycle, probably an infinite amount of times. Something makes it happen, something beyond what anyone living 15-2000 years ago in Arabia can certainly explain, but we cling to our misdirected beliefs because they seem to make sense after we are told to believe them enough. So, to answer the question, God cannot destroy itself because it is not a being which takes specific actions, or thinks in the sense that humans think, or even exists in a tangible sense. God is a construct from human minds to explain a much more powerful AND less powerful force which exists in entirely different terms than what has been incorrectly theorized by the various religions of the world to this point. The concept of God in the modern world is no more correct or legitimate than Jupiter, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other manmade creations.

Sort of a moot point. There is no God in the sense that people generally conceive of. Even most orthodoxists have gotten past the image of the bearded Giant residing in a clouded astral plane, but all the other traits given to God in general are nonsensical. It is not a being, it does not make value judgments, it does think or act. Such are only anthropomorphic traits lent by those whose erstwhile mindset can be displayed by the dominance of Geocentric theory. Primitive religions mixed the concept of the force creating the universe with a supervisory being which thinks we should act kind and fair, largely in order to have sway over the sheep who followed them. The Ten Commandments are the word of man misrepresented as that of God, an innocent and well-intentioned lie but no less a lie than Jesus's apotheosistic delusions. Jesus was a nice Jew who let his fame get to his head, eventually becoming a self-deluding demagogue who was able to persuade very impressionable and somewhat dull people into following his warped con-man megalomania. There were about 500 billion such mystery cults at the time, Christianity was simply one that succeeded. That people still believe such primitive explanations and blindly explain with "faith" that which can accurately be explained by science is only indicative of the general need of belonging and purpose, one of man's great weaknesses.

Atheism is equally foolish; the complexity of the human body, the unimaginable amount of factors that were required for life to exist on this planet and a host of other "coincidences" prove general chaos unlikely. Diseases, the innate desire for war and territoriality are largely here to prevent overpopulation, an innate desire sadly lacking from our collective psyche. The adaptation of animals, their existence in general has a purpose. Something is making it all work, but it's an unexplainable and inconceivable force, not some infallible human-like being with fatherly nurturing instincts. It cannot act, it cannot speak, it cannot lift an apple one inch off a table, it works in aeons and epochs, very slowly, and with discretion. It has not created limbo, heaven, and hell to punish or reward us based on the good or evil we do in our lives. Those are human concepts, not universal ones.

Our universe (or multiverse) is a fascinating amalgam of events, and the 18 billion year age given to it is incorrect. Red shift proves the universe is expanding, but it will also contract into the single atom from which it has expanded and contracted, much like a star's cycle, probably an infinite amount of times. Something makes it happen, something beyond what anyone living 15-2000 years ago in Arabia can certainly explain, but we cling to our misdirected beliefs because they seem to make sense after we are told to believe them enough. So, to answer the question, God cannot destroy itself because it is not a being which takes specific actions, or thinks in the sense that humans think, or even exists in a tangible sense. God is a construct from human minds to explain a much more powerful AND less powerful force which exists in entirely different terms than what has been incorrectly theorized by the various religions of the world to this point. The concept of God in the modern world is no more correct or legitimate than Jupiter, Zeus, Odin, or any of the other manmade creations.

Okay, so you say that God can't do anything physical... sort of. But you really haven't said anything that a possible answer to the question can be based on.

Some people do not know how to speak by the Holy Spirit. All of this is all going according to plan. Some will hear the message and believe others will not. I can only believe now, because I have truly felt God's presence inside of me and all around me to the point of being absorbed in His glory. It was a moment that was too hard to describe. It's like you get more than just five senses and all of them are blown away by the glory of God. I can only remember what it felt like. Everyone that has not felt that Life overflowing inside of them will usually ask, what drugs have you been taking? I have taken any drugs because I am afraid it will mess up my perception. I have taken some medication for diseases long ago, but not any where near that moment. Maybe it was the result of my fast from TV and the computer. My jeep's radio went out and all I could hear was violent wind. I could hear something else but it wasn't like I was actually hearing it. I tried to speak what I was hearing but it came out in some weird language with a song to a tune I never heard before.