Can God create another God?

Sorry, you are continuing to show your ignorance of religions. It is written in the Torah that if someone causes another person to become ill, he must pay his "doctor bills." The Torah clearly says that people should go to doctors and not rely on what would be called a miracle. Keep asking, you may learn something.Now a question of equal strength. Why do you go to doctors? If you are sick, why don't you let evolution take its course? Medicine is bad for evolution because it allows the unfit to survive. This is preventing the evolution of humans. We would be a much better species if we would just cut out the medicine.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

I will answer you again in the same manner. The conclusion to this paradox is that omnipotence must only exist in one being. What is so hard here? If something is omnipotent it can do anything. This includes limiting anything else in the entire universe. The existence of another omnipotent being is a paradox. They could each theoretically limit the other; otherwise they would each have limits of power. But limiting an omnipotent being does not fit with the definition of omnipotence. The only way to make logic out of this is to say that the existence of two omnipotent beings is not logical.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

NJ writes: This answer comes closest to answering the OPs proposition. God and his exsitence, which in himself is existence, is eternal and infinite, it would therefore be illogical to assume that he would or could create more "eternality" or more of himself. How do you make more of that which has no end. Its like saying God could make a round square or square circle. He can do all that is possible, even he cannot to that which impossible. But then, that which is impossible does not really exist anyway. The impossible has more to do with that which the mind produces especially in the area of direct or logical contradictions or things we know to be contradictory in principle or THEORY, not actual physical reality.Its the samething as asking, as George Carlin, did, "Can God make a rock bigger than he can lift"? Its not that its a "bad" question it is simply irrelevant as pertaining to his existence. The terms "bigger than" and "lift" have no meaning in the totality of his existence. Therefore the question is irrelevant. Deity certainly can reorganize divine essence in the respect of creation and the Spirit world, but this would have little to do with the infinite or eternality overall.If you mean by god, something lesser than himself, it would not be truely God.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

If god cannot do the impossible, he's neither god nor omnipotent. I was always under the impression that religions claimed god could do anything. Wouldn't a god that's limited to being able to do only the possible wonder who has created him? He probably would be looking for a higher god that can do anything and that wouldn't be limited in such a human-like way.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

No, you are ignorant of the thesis of evolution. Medicine is not bad for evolution but it is bad for Natural Selection. Thus medicine is not preventing evolution but it's preventing natural selection take its usual path. We, the atheists, don't believe this very imperfect world was created by a god, so we try to help ourselves stay alive for longer through medicine. On the other hand, your desire to use the benefits of our god's will breaking advancements is highly illogical. If your god wants you in heaven and sends you illnesses, why do you oppose god's will and turn to medicine to defy the command of god??
Could you give me link of the torah that says that people should go to doctors and not rely on what would be called a miracle?(consider the case when your kids get leukemia - it's not human -transmissible) Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

We could have quite well died out as did 99% of the species throughout the history of earth if it wasn't for medicine. In fact, we are fighting your god by medicines, trying to outsmart him(and we win in a lot of cases, which is amazing). That is a silent war that we are waging on your god, in which you the "belivers", side with us the atheists by using the benefits of science(medicine). Isn't opposing god's will a sin? So, why the hypocricy? Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Agobot writes:The impossible does not exist, it is not a real thing, that which is considered impossible are only thought patterns. This example will suffice. Love is a thought pattern, yet you can see the affects of Love. On the other hand, while imagining an impossible thing is possible, you cannot even see the affects of it, and this renders it a thing that is not real in reality. God Can do anything that is possible, but as I said that which is impossible is not real. God is all that there is, he is complete absoulute existence to infinity. He is both existence and all that there is possible "to do", as you call it. An infinite or eternal being has no creator or does he wonder who created him.As Isa, states, "I am God, are there any besides me, I know not one".I think your misunderstanding from the scriptures comes from those passages that state, "is anything impossible for God" or "with God all things are possible".. These ofcourse are affirmations of his ability to do all that is "possible" for the reasons I stated above. They are not affirmations that he can do that which is impossible. Some times when people read these passages, they make this mistake of comprehension. You will be hard pressed to find a passage that states he can do that which is impossible, or that which is a contradiction in and of itself. God is law and operates in this capacity.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

You are demonstrating you lack of knowledge, and your apathetic nature towards religion. I wrote clearly in my post that G-d wants us to go to doctors. In fact, the rule is that only three commandments in the Torah will stand in the way of a life threatening situation. A Jew is supposed to eat pork if that is all he can eat to survive. G-d also does not produce miracles because that would remove the free will to sin. Imagine what your life would be like if G-d sent lightning into every sinner. Would you sin? Imagine what your life would be like if all the good people had good lives and the bad people had bad lives. You would have to be fool to even contemplate sinning. G-d actually cures people through the physics of nature. Also, what makes the scientists think of medicines? Did you hear the story about the discovery of penicillin? If G-d controls the world, then he can heal people by manipulating the brains of the scientists in order to create new cures. Contrary to all other religions, Judaism is completely logical, and there is absolutely no hypocrisy. You have an agenda that blinds you from understanding what I am trying to say. The world was made to allow for sin. If G-d would control the world in a way that seemed completely miraculous, even you would never sin. Furthermore, the world is working in a very miraculous manner as it is. Even if G-d answered every prayer in a miraculous manner, you would develop a scientific reason for why prayer works. G-d does not act in a random manner, and therefore anything you see you will explain in terms of scientific fact. You don't even notice what you are doing with a world that seems completely miraculous to anyone with an open mind. You can theoretically take any act of G-d, no matter how improbable it may be, and explain it in terms of scientific fact.

So, if it can do anything, why can’t it limit itself?Because then it would no longer be omnipotent?Well, of course. But, why is that a paradox?----- By this logic, you would expect the paradox to go away if there were only one God.So, to make the paradox go away, you have asserted that God cannot limit Himself.I have tried multiple times to get you to tell me the logical reason why God could limit one omnipotent being (His putative rival), but not another (Himself), because this set of conditions is exactly what needs to exist if your argument is to stand. In response, you have only provided hypothetical scenarios that would be weird, but you have yet to provide an argument why such weirdness could not exist.In Message 63, I offered you two rules that would prevent one omnipotent being from limiting another: I left the door open for you to provide other alternatives. And, I explained why neither of the two alternatives I could think of would apply differently to another omnipotence than to one’s own.In Message 66, you didn’t suggest a third option, and you selected my option (b), that omnipotence is, by definition, unlimitable, as your reason why God cannot limit Himself.You have agreed that omnipotence cannot be limited. So, how do you propose that the putative second omnipotent being could limit your omnipotent God? You have already agreed that this is impossible.Therefore, from your conclusion (i.e., that omnipotence cannot be limited), nothing, not even the putative second omnipotence, could limit the first omnipotence (i.e., God). Therefore, God could create such a being without having to worry that that being would limit Him, right?Nope. Instead, you have concluded that this second being could, in fact, limit God, even though God is, by definition, unlimitable. So, because God is unlimitable, He can’t create a second being that couldn’t, by your definition, do anything to limit God anyway. To wrap it up once again: Because God is unlimitable, and another omnipotent being could logically limit Him, God must be limited in His ability to create another omnipotent being to avoid any sort of contradictions or paradoxes.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I have given up on explaining my point to Bluejay. He seems to not be understanding clear logic. Can someone else in this discussion give their own opinion on who is being more logical. Bluejay, please do not respond to this post. I want other people to give there opinion. I want everyone to look carefully at post 99 and see if they understand what Bluejay is trying to say. Then look at my posts, and see what I have to say. This debate is purely theoretical, and it does not matter what your actual beliefs are. I want someone to verify who is being more logical here.

Bluejay's argument makes sense.Your argument seems to have the hidden assumption that if God were to cede any of his omnipotence He would cease to be God. BlueJay does not make that assumption.So I have to say that Bluejay is being more logical, in that he does not rely on an important and non-obvious hidden assumption.

I don't know what to say to this... You seem to be living in another world. Your words above do not relate to reality. They don't even make sense. In any way.They make as much sense as:
"The gummy bear wants all to be happy and sends us rain from heaven to bless our souls after reading the holy book of bears. The gummy bear can heal wounds but he clearly says in the holy book that visiting doctors is recommended. A gummy bear is not bound by logic or human constraints, and can do anything within its abilities. Even if a guymmy bear answered every prayer in a miraculous manner, you would develop a scientific reason for why prayer works. The gummy bear does not act in a random manner, and therefore anything you see you will explain in terms of scientific fact. You don't even notice what you are doing with a world that seems completely miraculous to anyone with an open mind. You can theoretically take any act of the Gummy bear, no matter how improbable it may be, and explain it in terms of scientific fact."Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Can God lie? Can God do evil?
If not his omnipotence would seem very limited even by human standards of ability.

I have not said what I think is good or evil. I may agree with you. I may not. You are presuming my position before I even have one.I will ask again my previous questions as you have ignored them.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?

Open Mind writes:One is contending that God can limit himself and it have no affect on his Omnipotence. The other is contending that God cannot limit himself without giving up his Omnipotence, correct?It simply depends on what you mean by "Limit", or "limit Himself". Provide an example and perhaps it will be easier for others to detemine a solution.ThanksD BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.