Can God create another God?

I must thank you for posting this one. You admit in this post that you do not believe that G-d is omnipotent. But my entire point of all of our discussion was that the existence of two omnipotent beings is not possible. This is proven by the paradox that will result if two omnipotent beings did exist. You clearly agree with me, but you reject the possiblility of an omnipotent being all together. Since your god is not omnipotent, he can kill himself. Even further, you can kill him too.

Hi, Open MInd.You are mistaken: I have not been presenting my view that God is not omnipotent nor have I been using it to support my attack on your argument. I offered it so you would realize that the arguments I have been making in this thread are not my personal views, but the logical rebuttal of your argument, because you have been confusing my personal viewpoints with the argument that you are presenting.I admit that the fault for the misunderstanding is at least partially mine, because I introduced my view as "my argument," but you honestly should have been able to tell that I was not basing my rebuttal on my own opinion that God is not omnipotent. And I have thoroughly refuted this. What paradox? You certainly haven't shown that there is a paradox. You have only shown that a universe comprised entirely of omnipotent beings would be weird. So what?Read this part again: Your argument requires omnipotence to be both limitable and unlimitable. This is contradictory, and it ruins your whole argument.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Agobot writes: I had no idea that diseases like leukemia, cancer, HIV and Down's syndrome were human made. I always thought that since they were around for as long as we were, they must have come from our "kid's loving" God. BTW, killing kids is disgusting, appalling and extremely low. I thought that was meant as a kidding but on the second reading I get the impression it's not.
I made my daughter in my bedroom, I can assure there were no gods, no Santa Clauses, no Pink Panthers and no Poltergeists as this process took place. As you can probably guess, it's me who pays for everything in my house, I have never won a lottery, I hardly ever win in casinos, so you could rightly claim that god sustains my daughter as much as I sustain financially the holy trinity.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

You are entitled to your opinions. But, don't try to disprove G-d by making up your own fantasy. It will get you nowhere.Just a side question, Is that avatar a picture of you and your wife?
Also, why can't I kill your daughter. You made it, I broke it. I will pay you for it or make one for you. Or, better yet, you can always make another one. I see nothing evil. It sounds like business.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

Straggler writes Open Mind writes Fine. Everything God does is good. By definition. However my question stands. If I oppose God damning someone to eternal damnation, for example, out of compassion, love and loyalty am I sinning by opposing God?It is a simple question.
I have not claimed to know what is good or evil aside from your definition.I have simply asked if I oppose God on grounds of compassion, love and loyalty if I am sinning? By you definition.Why is it so hard for you to just answer?

If you didn't skip classes in school you'd probably be aware that the creatures in my avatar are Australopithecus. They are our predecessors and they are as much relatives of me as they are of you or anyone else(and science has a few skeletons for you to ponder and scratch your head in dismay). Here are more pics of them:File:A.afarensis.jpg - Wikipediahttp://www.evcforum.net/Images/Avatars/7101.jpgRegarding your last 2 lines, they just prove how retarded most of the theists are. Funny thing is that the religious usually get the hardest life and the most hardships(that's just an observation on which i'll hardly be able to find a survey)Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

How would you kill my daughter when you are shitting your pants just writing about g-d? You can't even spell god correctly because you are so scared of the illusionary Almighty. I suggest you make an explosive belt and blow yourself up in the name of God(oops, sorry i meant G-d). But first make sure there are more illiterate dillusional retards around you. And next time you should spell my daughter "d-ghter"Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi, Open MInd.[Enter Bluejay, with a tacky double response]I just thought of a better, clearer way to say this. You have argued this: God cannot create another omnipotent God because it would limit Him, and God cannot be limited because He is omnipotent.Break it down a little, and you get this: An omnipotent God cannot limit Himself by creating another omnipotent God.Break this down to its bare-bones bottom line, and you get this:Omnipotence cannot limit omnipotence.-----Your support for that argument has been this: If there were two omnipotent Gods, they could each limit each other's power.Broken down to its bare bones:Omnipotence can limit omnipotence.-----Therefore, your argument, in summation, looks like this: Omnipotence cannot limit omnipotence because omnipotence can limit omnipotence.Do you see the contradiction yet? Or does it still sound perfectly logical? Read it several times, just to make sure.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

In light of his previous posts, i am certain that it's just what OpenMInd meant to say all along.Or in summation:G-d cannot create another G-d because G-d can create another G-d.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

The question now is will openMind accept that his god is illogical and nonsensical and perhaps find a religion and god that are less illogical and nonsensical?

Omnipotence is what God can do. By definition.
Good is what God does. By definition.
Lie is what God cannot say. By definition.Thus by definition alone God is omnipotent, God is good and God speaks the truth.By this circular logic there can be any number of things that God cannot do whilst still being "omnipotent".
By this circular logic God can undertake any action for any motive and still his actions will be "good".
By this circular logic God can say anything no matter how untrue and it will not be a "lie".Arguments by definition are arguments designed to conceal conceptual flaws. If these are all you have then frankly you have lost the debate before you have started.A being who can do all that God can do but who can also lie, do evil and defy logic is obviously "more omnipotent" than your God. Given the stupidity of the phrase "more omnipotent" it suggests that your definition of omnipotent is somewhat lacking and that your God is in fact quite evidently not omnipotent by any measure other than your own self serving circular definition of the word.As regards good and evil - Arguments by definition alone will lead to some ridiculous notions of morality. For example if I oppose the actions of God (whatever they may be - e.g. consigning someone to eternal damnation) based on compassion, love and loyalty then by your definition of good, evil, sin etc. I am opposing the righteaous goodness of God and thus must be sinning.Are self serving definitions all you have or is there anything worthwhile to your argument at all?

What has never ceased to amaze me is how the religious denounce science but when they suddenly become seriously ill they don't turn to their god(and stay at home expecting god's help) but they turn to hospitals and science. Why the hypocricy? Why don't you let god heal you if you are so certain of the existence of god?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

That is not entirely true Agobot. Many people in fact do this very thing. You just don't hear much about them cause they usualy die. That's ok though because it was for the greater good that god refused to answer their pleas for life and choose instead to snuff em.

Hi, Straggler. I've wondered about the usage of the word "omnipotent" quite often (obviously, being religious and scientific, it's important to get my facts straight). Typically, "omnipotent" is taken to mean that there aren't any limits at all. But, seeing how it means "all power," could it be that the "power" to do certain things simply doesn't exist for God to have? Could we then say He still has "all power," simply because He has all power that there is to be had?It seems a bit like equivocating to me, but that definition of "omnipotent" would certainly bring God down to a more logical level. Of course, most people would consider it blasphemy to presume that God is subject to something so mundane as logic.Still, I'd be interested to hear your opinion.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

You cannot claim to know what you are talking about when you mention the words good or evil. You may have the definition that I already put forward for atheists: Good is what I like, and Bad is what I don't like. Can you see the problem with this. I like one thing, and you may like something else. Please give a valid definition for good and bad that will be universal (other than the definition that I gave you). In short when you oppose G-d, you are doing something evil. I hope that answers your question. Now please try to give me your definition of good and evil.