To many, at first sight, this question may seem to strike as absurd. However, honestly after reflecting on this topic for such a long time, I was not able to reach a conclusion.
This question initially demands the assumption of an existing God. God is defined and universally recognized as having the following attributes/qualities:
Omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence, and eternal.
What is most significant and important in this example is the eternal quality of God.
Assuming a God does exist, would he be able to destroy himself? Or is this merely a flaw within human language(allowing a paradox to be formed)?
i.e. If god exists, then he must be eternal. If he is eternal then he cannot cease to exist. Yet, if he is omnipotent he is able to do anything including being able to destroy himself, then he is no longer eternal because he can be destroyed. This, therefore creates a paradox.
This paradox can also be compared to the following question:
What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?
Isaac Asimov answered this question rather well. In one of his books, he stated:
A universe in which there exists such a thing as an irresistible force is, by definition, a universe which cannot also contain an immovable object. And a universe which contains an immovable object cannot, by definition, also contain an irresistible force. So the question is essentially meaningless: either the force is irresistible or the object is immovable, but not both.
Can such answer be related to my question in a similar manner or are these 2 irrelevant? Does this imply that in a world in which destruction exists an eternal God cannot?
Can this paradoxical question be used as an argument by many to prove the absence of God? Or Is this merely a childish loophole in logic/English and not worth investing time to answer?