I think this sort of thing nothing but childishness. “Can God make a rock so heavy that even he can’t lift it?” “Can God make a square with just three sides?” “If God is eternal and omnipotent, can he kill himself?” Please. It’s adolescent semantic gamesmanship. The sort of stuff that got me in trouble in catechism class in sixth grade. I had to sit in the coat closet. Which was fine, because that was where they kept the boxes of pretzels.
Some think that Jesus was a chunk of God, and Jesus was mortal. Unless you don’t count dying if you manage to have a spirit and/or ressurect yourself, of course.
I once read an Asimov short story that posited that God was unable to kill himself and had (apparently) created mankind just to distill out somebody smart enough to figure out how to pull it off. I’m apparently incapable of remembering or googling the name of the story, though.
You guys hooting about the burritos and whatnot, do you realize that this is not a logical contradiction under discussion? The OP doesn’t mention “eternal” - and without it, there is no contradiction. And there isn’t even necessarily one if you do include it, since I don’t see any rule saying that God can’t change it’s own properties (in fact it’s my opinion that any God that can’t permanently remove its own powers isn’t omnipotent).
So this isn’t a trick question - it’s a valid question. Does (your conception of) the Chrisitan God have the capability to kill itself? And could the universe survive the event? I’ve heard conceptions where God is a fundamental part of the universe; one might posit that the universe would unravel if you yanked his thread out of it. Alternately, I’ve heard him descibed as basically separate and distinct.
The Last Answer. Note that the God in question had no real reason to think that they actually could find a way to kill it; it just couldn’t think of anything better to do, and had no problem with basically putting people in Hell indefinitely on the unsubstantiated hope they might be able to think of something it hadn’t.
Commenting as an agnostic, it’s not clear to me what it takes away from a meaningful conception of God to simply state that God is not omnipotent in senses that would be self-contradictory: He can’t make a rock so big He can’t lift it; He can’t destroy himself; He can’t contradict his own will, make a mistake, or do anything “wrong”; He couldn’t create a universe without evil in it that would still permit human free will and otherwise serve his unguessable purposes… Such a God could remain “omnipotent” in the sense of being able to create and destroy matter at will, and intervene in the universe at any time and at level He chooses.
Such a conception of God seems to me to fit together and to reconcile things like the existence of evil and the goodness of God a lot better than does insistence on an absolute definition of omnipotence.