Scientific Approach to the Jesus question

[Woody]

Chris said:

The only issue here is whether a god exists or not and the method used to determine that. Subjective art appreciation doesn’t come close to a reliable method.

Is subjective art real or not real? How do you define reality?

I define reality thusly: I thought of it therefore it is real. I do not, however, have the authority to make it real in terms of science because I do not have that authority.

Therefore all thoughts are real, whether they come from a sane person or a lunatic. If someone thinks he is god that is real, but he does not have the authority to be god. If he thinks he has the authority, that is real. He has that authority over his own mind not over mine or anyone else's nor does the universe obey his authority.

Likewise, is the concept of God. I believe it, not by my own authority but by the authority of the bible which contains god's word which existed before science existed. It is not my own authority that I concede to, and it's the same way I submit to the laws of science when they govern my existence.

My existence is not that of a robot with the mind of a computer. I am a being that both thinks and feels. No computer will ever be able to duplicate the human psyche. A computer will never have awareness of self. It will always be inert because it is nothing more than a machine.

If you want proof that god exists just look at cognition. It is allowed to be because of our physical self, but nothing governs the limits of its capability. When you call something a fantasy it proves God exists. Science only governs real facts. Science does not govern fantasy, therefore fantasy did not come from science. Where do you think fantasy comes from?

If you really want to see God you are looking in the wrong places.

[Oli]

How do you define reality?

Can it be measured, does it have an effect on other things, etc. etc.

Therefore all thoughts are real

Of course, the currents in the brain can be measured as you have them. The results of a thought can be turned into speech or action and therefore can have an external effect.

Likewise, is the concept of God. I believe it, not by my own authority but by the authority of the bible which contains god's word which existed before science existed.

So you the bible is accurate and genuine because the bible says it is accurate and genuine?

A computer will never have awareness of self.

That's not provable now and MAY become false. That's speculation on your part.

If you want proof that god exists just look at cognition. It is allowed to be because of our physical self,

What do you mean allowed? If you mean that cognition proves that god exists and that we have cognition because god allowed it that's a sort of circular argument isn't it?

Science does not govern fantasy

Correct, science destroys fantasies. Fantasies like god.

Cris:

Not if the “mechanism” doesn’t need a cause.

or if the mechanism has a natural cause....

[Oli]

So, my fantasy to bang Christina Aguilera into an orgasmic coma is proof of god?

Pick another fantasy SL, she really wants me.

[Cris]

Whoody,

Is subjective art real or not real?

Why care?

How do you define reality?

I’d use a dictionary.

I define reality thusly: I thought of it therefore it is real.

Clearly that is false. Existence of something is not dependent on whether you think of it or not.

I do not, however, have the authority to make it real in terms of science because I do not have that authority.

Authority? Relevance?

… all thoughts are real, whether they come from a sane person or a lunatic.

True, except that the objects of the thoughts may not be real.

If someone thinks he is god that is real,

No that doesn’t follow since he may not be a god. Only the thought is real.

Likewise, is the concept of God. I believe it, not by my own authority but by the authority of the bible which contains god's word

That doesn’t make God real. There is no other support other than your thoughts and the thoughts of others and as we see above existence is independent of thoughts.

which existed before science existed.

Had modern Science existed at that time then the bible would never have seen the light of day.

No computer will ever be able to duplicate the human psyche.

Why not?

A computer will never have awareness of self.

Why not?

It will always be inert because it is nothing more than a machine.

But you are a machine but carbon based instead of silicon based. There is no other difference.

If you want proof that god exists just look at cognition. It is allowed to be because of our physical self, but nothing governs the limits of its capability.

A brain with some 200 billion neurons gives us this ability, but it is definitely finite and very limited.

When you call something a fantasy it proves God exists.

Clearly it doesn’t.

Science only governs real facts.

No, science discovers and records facts.

Science does not govern fantasy, therefore fantasy did not come from science.

You really don’t know what science is, do you? This is just gibberish.

Where do you think fantasy comes from?

It’s called imagination.

If you really want to see God you are looking in the wrong places.

But we have found god – he exists only in your imagination which you have just proven. Fortunately he is trapped there and cannot affect anything real.

[Woody]

Chris says:

Clearly that is false. Existence of something is not dependent on whether you think of it or not.

You need to qualify your statement by saying "the physical existence of something is not dependent on whether you think of it or not."

And I still disagree, because someone can think of a song, record it and sell it. Is the song real or not? Surely the millions of dollars they earned would be considered real wouldn't they?

I’d use a dictionary.

Please do that, and while you are there look up the word "psyche." Is psyche real or not?

Authority? Relevance?

Something had the authority to put the laws of science in place that you cling to so tenatiously as a basis for reality. You don't believe the laws of science always existed do you? The age of our universe is finite, you know.

But we have found god – he exists only in your imagination which you have just proven. Fortunately he is trapped there and cannot affect anything real.

We have also found that my imagination and yours are not governed by science. I am free from science - hooray! What a bore it would be otherwise. Does your imagination exist or not? Surely it does unless you are someone's computer program.

But you are a machine but carbon based instead of silicon based. There is no other difference.

Yeah, sure dude, sure. And I think of God which is not real -- no I'm not a machine. If I were then I would only think in terms of what is physically real. As I just explained science has no dominion over my thoughts. I can imagine myself flying if I want to, but that is not physically possible.

It's really kind of fun being imaginative. Why would I want to be some staid, mechanical robot? That's no fun. How do you entertain yourself, and why do you even need it to start with? The psyche is real. Which is more real, science or psyche? Can psyche exist without science?

If science is pre-requisite for psyche then why doesn't it control the content of what psyche thinks? I think there is a cause-and-effect violation here. The effect can not be greater than the cause, yet I have shown that it is, therefore science is not the cause. As they say in geometry QED, and logic beats science again.

[Oli]

Reread that quote Woody.
Existence is NOT DEPENDANT on being thought of. That means something not thought of can exist.
E.g. rocks.

[Cris]

whoody

And I still disagree, because someone can think of a song, record it and sell it. Is the song real or not? Surely the millions of dollars they earned would be considered real wouldn't they?

You are more than a little confused here. The action of recording creates a real object; it is no longer in the imagination. Now go and create the omniscient god that you imagine. Kinda not the same thing, right?

Something had the authority to put the laws of science in place that you cling to so tenatiously as a basis for reality.

What do you mean by the laws of science, do you really mean the laws of nature?

You don't believe the laws of science always existed do you?

Science is a man made discipline that has been evolving for some time. You don’t seem to have a clear understanding of what science means.

The age of our universe is finite, you know.

The age of the universe is unknown, or even whether it is infinite or not. What age do you think it is?

We have also found that my imagination and yours are not governed by science.

Who said they were? And please take some time to reassess your use of the word “science”. It is incorrect in almost all of your usage.

I am free from science - hooray!

Science is an often tough discipline to master and very few measure up to it. The results of science surround you and even the internet that you are using is a result of science as are the antibiotics that have most likely saved your life and family members. So no you are not free from science since you are now quite dependent on its discoveries. Contrast that with religion that to date has never discovered or presented any truth or useful fact in the history of mankind.

What a bore it would be otherwise.

Clearly you haven’t attempted to learn any science otherwise you would not make such silly statements.

Does your imagination exist or not? Surely it does unless you are someone's computer program.

Of course it does, why would you think it doesn’t?

And I think of God which is not real -- no I'm not a machine.

But you are a biological machine.

If I were then I would only think in terms of what is physically real.

Why? Why couldn’t an AI have an imagination just like yours?

As I just explained science has no dominion over my thoughts.

Your statement makes no sense.

I can imagine myself flying if I want to, but that is not physically possible.

It is definitely physically possible for you to imagine yourself flying. It is not however physically possible for you to fly though without some artificial means, made possible by science.

It's really kind of fun being imaginative.

I agree; the trouble comes when you are unable to distinguish unreal imaginary objects like gods from reality.

Why would I want to be some staid, mechanical robot?

I don’t know, sounds dreadful. How about a robot that has an intelligence and imagination 10 times more powerful than yours instead.

How do you entertain yourself, and why do you even need it to start with?

A faster way to evolve perhaps.

The psyche is real.

If you mean the human mind then OK it’s real.

Which is more real, science or psyche?

Science is man made and clearly real, if by psyche you mean the human mind then that is also real. Other than that I don’t see the point of your question.

Can psyche exist without science?

Your misinterpretation of both words leaves your question as simply gibberish.

If science is pre-requisite for psyche then why doesn't it control the content of what psyche thinks?

More gibberish it seems.

I think there is a cause-and-effect violation here.

I’m pretty sure you have no clue what you are talking about.

The effect can not be greater than the cause,

Nonsense. If I shout in an avalanche sensitive area I can bring down a mountain of snow. By my simple action of dropping an atomic bomb on a city I can kill a million people at one time. There are endless other examples for the fallacy in your statement.

yet I have shown that it is, therefore science is not the cause.

Go read what is meant by science and start all over.

As they say in geometry QED, and logic beats science again.

Sigh! Science is a user of logic, they are not in competition. And most certainly you have not proved anything except to demonstrate your significant misunderstanding of many basic ideas and words.

[TheVisitor]

You speak as if faith has some desirable value, it doesn’t. It is the irrational mistake to believe a fantasy as if true.

Faith isn't blind irrational belief, its an understanding of true reality.
It isn't my faith really...its God's faith He chose to share with me.
I have His same faith because I am a part of Him, as a son.
He imparted this gift into my spiritual genes, its nothing I did, that I deserved it any more than anyone else.
I was born this way, looking long since a teenager for the meaning of life, why we are here, a real purpose.
Its part of my make up.The way I was created, I could not run from it, no mater how hard I tried.
I wasn't raised religious so you can't use that excuse.
Seek God while He can yet still be found, for if you will not, some day you will seek Him and He will not answer.
Faith is a revelation from God.
I think Woody understands what I mean.
Look I don't put anyone down for not believing in God, but those already given over to a spirit beyond there control must sometimes be opposed when they attempt to harm others, and they don't realize what they are doing.
They just can't see it.
And they say faith is blind....

[Cris]

TheVisitor

Faith isn't blind irrational belief, its an understanding of true reality.

Please describe the criteria for the determination of true reality?

I think Woody understands what I mean.

Offering whoody as a reference is of very dubious value.

Look I don't put anyone down for not believing in God, but those already given over to a spirit beyond there control must sometimes be opposed when they attempt to harm others, and they don't realize what they are doing.They just can't see it.

To counter that I must assure you that religion is probably one of the greatest evils man has yet devised and as such it must be opposed and defeated with all the vehemence it deserves. I strongly recommend you seriously and urgently reassess the massive delusion you have heaped upon yourself and learn to think more clearly.

And they say faith is blind....

Yes religious faith is quite blind.

[Regulus]

No I didn’t come close to saying anything like that. I merely pointed out the paradox that would result in a scenario of which we have no precedent or any way to indicate would be possible. Not having an answer to a probable paradox seems quite acceptable and doesn’t imply anything further.

Actually you can't solve every paradox. A Universe that has existed for an infinity in itself is a paradox and yet we except it simply on the grounds that it is the only way causality can exist. That is in itself a paradox, it had no cause for it's infinite cause yet it has that infinite cause and it doesn't need it simply on the premise that it IS an infinite cause. There is no explanation other than it IS what it IS. I'd say that's paradoxal.

Umm well if something does contradict itself then yes it cannot exist.

Need I use my above explanation again?

Why? If it is cyclical then that means no intervention is required.

Why does God need to create itself to show it can create itself, just because of the premise that it has always been? Why does God need to kill itself for it to be able to kill itself? It can, and yet not die.

Yours is the same dead end as mine my friend. I agree, I suppose I have no answer for that, but same goes for the seemingly paradoxal statement of how God CANNOT kill itself, if it is perfect and can do anything. If it's perfect, it can do anything, even kill itself and yet not be killed. It can, but it just can't be killed, it doesn't mean it doesn't have the ability. Once again that has it's own cyclicality statement, yet it is not excepted.

Not if it has always existed. Why assume something infinite needs to be caused?

Why assume something that can do anything can't kill itself if it cannot die? Same premise, another dead end. Once again we both haven't an answer for that.

I don’t see any contradictions with an infinite universe.

Neither do I on a being that can't be killed, yet has the ability to kill itself. Once again, another dead end. And if you cannot see that dead end I will show it to you. Every action needs a reaction, but if it's infinite it doesn't, yet every action needs a reaction. You still except yes? Simply on the premise that it's an infinite. Same with God. Simply on the premise that it can, though it can't be killed.

Another dead end Cris.

Not if the “mechanism” doesn’t need a cause.

Then why doesn't it need a cause? Becuz it's infinite.Same with the being that can kill itself, and yet not be killed. Why can it kill itself? Becuz it can do anything. There's no other answer then what it is, infinite and Omnipotent. Those aren't any answers other then the titles themselves.

Another Dead end Cris.

There are plenty of answers, some seem more probable and credible than others, what we don’t have is proof for any.

There's no answer as to why a Universe is infinite, or why this being can kill itself and yet not be killed.

[Cris]

Regulus,

A Universe that has existed for an infinity in itself is a paradox

Why? Where is the paradox?

and yet we except it simply on the grounds that it is the only way causality can exist.

Your statement doesn’t make sense.

… yet it has that infinite cause …

There can be no cause for something that has no beginning. You are tying yourself in knots here. There is no paradox.

Why does God need to kill itself for it to be able to kill itself? It can, and yet not die.

What?? If something is killed it means that it dies.

Every action needs a reaction, but if it's infinite it doesn't, yet every action needs a reaction.

If there was no beginning then there was no action, so no problem.

Then why doesn't it need a cause? Becuz it's infinite.

Very good, you’ve answered your own question.

[Regulus]

There can be no cause for something that has no beginning. You are tying yourself in knots here. There is no paradox.

Then the idea of God kill itself and not being able to die is no paradox by your definition.Your simply saying, becuz it's infinite. Every action, MUST have an equal and opposite reaction, that's the paradox. You can't simply say it doesn't just becuz it's infinite. You need an explanation. Otherwise I have no reason to explain why God can kill itself and it can't die. If the cyclicality needs no reaction then every action DOESNT need a reaction. What's paradoxal about it is that it imply's that a physical law means nothing. Becuz there is that ONE thing that defy's that physical law, thus it is no longer a physical law.

Otherwise for no apparent reason your saying something needs no reaction simply on the premise that it is infinite. There's no reasoning, no explanation, only on the premise that it is infinite. Understand? You are not explaining how it is a cyclicality, only that it is infinite and it can becuz it's infinite. It's an infinite action, that action itself being the cause and effect infinitely. the cause is the cause and effect. There is no other way around this. God can kill itself and yet not die. It can becuz it can do anything, it can becuz it's Omnipotent.

Once again you and I are explaining something simply on the premise of it's ability. It can becuz it's infinite, it can becuz it can do anything. They explain themselves. INFINITE causality. OmniPOTENCE. All potency, all powerful.

What?? If something is killed it means that it dies.

It has the ability to kill itself, it just can't die.

If there was no beginning then there was no action, so no problem.

Wrong, there is a problem. The only reason why the cyclicality must exist is the idea that every action MUST have an equal and opposite reaction. If it needs no action then every action DOESNT need a reacion, and a physical law is presently non existant.

Very good, you’ve answered your own question.

And so have you. It can becuz it is. It can becuz it's infinite, it can becuz it's Omnipotent.

We are talking in circles.

[Woody]

whoody

You are more than a little confused here. The action of recording creates a real object; it is no longer in the imagination. Now go and create the omniscient god that you imagine. Kinda not the same thing, right?

The song wasn't real until it was created. That is the point. I don't have the authority to create the omniscient god, but I do have the authority to write a song about him.

What do you mean by the laws of science, do you really mean the laws of nature?

more correctly, yes.

Science is a man made discipline that has been evolving for some time. You don’t seem to have a clear understanding of what science means.

Yet I have three science degrees, but don't understand it -- odd. I also make a living daily by using science to solve physical problems. All I know is that it works when I use it correctly. Get philisophical about it if you want to.

The age of the universe is unknown, or even whether it is infinite or not. What age do you think it is?

I don't know its age but it is finite. Entropy proves it. If you don't think so, then please show me your revision of the physical laws of science.

Who said they were? And please take some time to reassess your use of the word “science”. It is incorrect in almost all of your usage.

ok, what's the point of confusion bedsides a nuance in the definitions.

Science is an often tough discipline to master and very few measure up to it. The results of science surround you and even the internet that you are using is a result of science as are the antibiotics that have most likely saved your life and family members. So no you are not free from science since you are now quite dependent on its discoveries. Contrast that with religion that to date has never discovered or presented any truth or useful fact in the history of mankind.

Science is also interested in a smaller universe than we live in. Why should I live in a box like you?

Clearly you haven’t attempted to learn any science otherwise you would not make such silly statements.

Yet I make a living using it as an engineer, just like you. My employer pays me to do that. I think your statements are silly.

Of course it does, why would you think it doesn’t?

Yet the imagination is not scientific -- how do you live with it?

But you are a biological machine.

Why? Why couldn’t an AI have an imagination just like yours?

Now you are using your own imagination. I encourage that. The problem with AI having an imagination, is that it would first need an emotion center. Emotion is based on personal needs. A machine has no personal needs.

W said:

As I just explained science has no dominion over my thoughts.

Chris said:

Your statement makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. My physical body allows me to think, but it does not control my will.

It is definitely physically possible for you to imagine yourself flying. It is not however physically possible for you to fly though without some artificial means, made possible by science.

I agree; the trouble comes when you are unable to distinguish unreal imaginary objects like gods from reality.

The trouble is your science box isn't big enough.

It excludes a lot of things that everyone appreciates and enjoys.

I don’t know, sounds dreadful. How about a robot that has an intelligence and imagination 10 times more powerful than yours instead.

Sounds like science fiction.

Science is man made and clearly real, if by psyche you mean the human mind then that is also real. Other than that I don’t see the point of your question.
Your misinterpretation of both words leaves your question as simply gibberish. More gibberish it seems.

OK, it's really a question of cognition, and what enables it. Sure we need a natural body in this world in order to have cognition, but is that the only way cognition can exist? I suspect it isn't, just like you suspect AI can have free will. Perhaps both are true.

I’m pretty sure you have no clue what you are talking about.

The law of excluded middles is a standard paradigm in logic, and it encompasses cause and effect. Here's that thread I thought you edited on the subject (but it was actually Q):

Origin of Universe

AN EXCERPT FROM THAT THREAD

[*1]The law of cause and effect says:

- Nothing can not cause something, it can only cause nothing.
- A cause can not come after the effect and an effect can not come before the cause.
- The effect can not be greater than the cause.

[*2]The law of excluded middles says a proposition can not be both true and false at the same time.

Nonsense. If I shout in an avalanche sensitive area I can bring down a mountain of snow. By my simple action of dropping an atomic bomb on a city I can kill a million people at one time. There are endless other examples for the fallacy in your statement.

Actually you are proving my point. You chose to imagine those things in your mind, that doesn't make them physically real until you act on them. When you act upon those thoughts your imagination then becomes greater than the physical universe because it changes the physical universe. The universe did not cause you to choose. An effect can not come before the cause. Hence the physical universe is subservient to psyche with limits of course. Currently our pshyche isn't big enough to change the physical laws of the universe. Maybe someday it will be. As they say in geometry QED.

Go read what is meant by science and start all over.

OK, I did review it and I didn't really see a problem with it except a quibble over definitions. Substitute "nature" for science if you wish. The problem with that definition is human nature imagines God which is not real (according to you). Using nature instead, kind of muddies the water, but ok. I have two natures -- my physical one and the other one created by the bible.

Sigh! Science is a user of logic, they are not in competition. And most certainly you have not proved anything except to demonstrate your significant misunderstanding of many basic ideas and words.

Science is a user of logic, and logic is the name of the God I believe in. More properly, logos, is the name of the God I believe in.

[KennyJC]

I didn't answer that because it didn't dignify a response. Now, when I ignore your rebuttal to this, you can convince yourself that you've "won".

Well for I start I knew I'd won before you even had a chance to reply, because it's not the sort of thing you can defend without looking silly, which is why you refused.

[Cris]

Regulus,

Every action, MUST have an equal and opposite reaction,

Why? This law applies to every event that has a beginning. Why must it apply to the case where there is no beginning?

[Cris]

Whoody,

The song wasn't real until it was created. That is the point. I don't have the authority to create the omniscient god, but I do have the authority to write a song about him.

And how does that prove a god exists?

Yet I have three science degrees, but don't understand it -- odd.

Sounds like you have wasted your time then, you’ve missed the essentials.

I also make a living daily by using science to solve physical problems.

I’ll make a note not to employ you then – thanks for the warning.

Get philisophical about it if you want to.

It is a matter of understanding the meaning not about philosophy.

I don't know its age but it is finite. Entropy proves it.

Entropy applies to a closed system, but an infinite universe isn’t a closed system. The entropy hypothesis doesn’t apply.

ok, what's the point of confusion bedsides a nuance in the definitions.

Total confusion as to what you are talking about.

Science is also interested in a smaller universe than we live in. Why should I live in a box like you?

What?

Yet the imagination is not scientific -- how do you live with it?

What does that mean?

Now you are using your own imagination. I encourage that.

Stop the condescension crap.

The problem with AI having an imagination, is that it would first need an emotion center. Emotion is based on personal needs. A machine has no personal needs.

Why couldn’t an AI have emotions and personal needs? Emotions are also governed by our neural networks.

My physical body allows me to think, but it does not control my will.

What’s the difference?

The trouble is your science box isn't big enough.

What does that mean? Science has no boundary.

human nature imagines God which is not real (according to you).

Not quite. I’ve said the god concept is a fantasy, not that it isn’t real. No one has shown it is real yet, until then it resides only in the imagination.

Using nature instead, kind of muddies the water, but ok. I have two natures -- my physical one and the other one created by the bible.

Don’t think you’ve quite got it yet. Try “the laws of physics” instead. You are now using the various meanings of the word nature as if they are interchangeable.

Science is a user of logic, and logic is the name of the God I believe in. More properly, logos, is the name of the God I believe in.

Bizarre.

[Regulus]

Regulus,

Why? This law applies to every event that has a beginning. Why must it apply to the case where there is no beginning?

No one ever said it applied to it having a beginning. it said every action, regaurdless of it being infinite or not it's still unexplainable besides the fact that it's infinite. There's is no action or reaction, it is it's own action and reaction. I'd say that sounds pretty messed up to me. In no way in the laws of physics is anything it's own action AND reaction, except this ONE thing. Just like Omnipotence, kill itself, yet can't be killed, there's nothing that can die and yet have the ability to kill.

Cris... we can talk in circles like this for hours, but in no way are we getting anywhere. There's no way.

We're stuck...

[Cris]

Regulus,

No one ever said it applied to it having a beginning. it said every action, regaurdless of it being infinite or not it's still unexplainable besides the fact that it's infinite.

By definition an action has a beginning, there are boundary conditions, but an infinite entity has no boundaries. I would propose that this law of motion cannot apply to the whole of an infinite entity since a starting action cannot exist.

There's is no action or reaction, it is it's own action and reaction.

Those two clauses appear to conflict with each other. Drop the argument for action and reaction since it does not apply here.

Note that an infinite entity MUST exist or have existed otherwise nothing could have ever begun and we couldn’t be here. Either the universe has an infinite past or something exists that has or had an infinite past that created the universe. Since we have nothing to indicate that the universe has not always existed and nothing to indicate that there is such a thing as a creator then the most practical working hypothesis according to occam’s razor is to assume that the universe has always existed.

[Regulus]

But again that doesn't mean God can't exist. You claim it cannot exist on the same premise someone would claim infinite causality wouldn't exist.

I am not saying infinite causality cannot. What I am trying to say is you have proven my point Cris. There's apsolutely no scientific way of explaining infinite causality, on the premise that it IS infinite on the same premise that an Omnipotent being can create itself, and yet not die.

I agree, infinite causality has to exist on the grounds of the Universes own physical laws. but I also say that it's not impossible for an Omnipotent being to exist, just becuz it can kill itself and yet not die or vice versa.

That's my 2 cents on all of this. Thankyou for the input Cris, this has all been very thought provoking.

[Cris]

Regulus,

But again that doesn't mean God can't exist.

That’s not what I’ve said.

You claim it cannot exist on the same premise someone would claim infinite causality wouldn't exist.

No I haven’t. The issue concerned a paradox and I see no paradox in an infinite universe, there is no comparison.

I am not saying infinite causality cannot.

The issue of causality isn’t applicable to an infinite object. You are tying yourself in knots by trying to retain that notion.

There's apsolutely no scientific way of explaining infinite causality,

One can indeed never experimentally prove something had an infinite past since even assuming one could travel back in time one could never go back far enough to observe no beginning. One could only prove that it is not infinite by discovering a beginning.

..on the premise that it IS infinite on the same premise that an Omnipotent being can create itself, and yet not die.

You’ve lost me entirely on your notion of self creation and not dying. It hasn’t seemed relevant for some time.

.. I also say that it's not impossible for an Omnipotent being to exist,

No you cannot claim that. You have no basis on which to claim that omnipotence is possible. It cannot be deduced or induced and there is certainly no evidential basis.