Can God create another God?

Isn't it the same as:
"You cannot do anything, because you can do anything."Or did you mean:
"You cannot NOT "do anything" because you cannot stop yourself from being able to do anything."

So the logical outcome of this discussion so far is that God is not and cannot be "omnipotent". Even OpenMInd acknowledes that god is omnipotent with certain limitaions, which make him powerful, but not omnipotent(being unable to do anything that our pathetic minds can think of).But then OpenMInd contends that god is perfect. How can god be perfect and at the same time be subject to limitations?
"perfect" meaning without any flaws. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

It seems we agree then.

I don't claim to have one. I am not a moral absolutist. You however do claim to have a definition of good and evil (whatever God does is good, whatever opposes God is evil). I am pointing out to you that your definition leads to some seeming paradoxes. If God consigns someone to eternal damnation and I oppose this on the grounds of love, compassion and loyalty am I doing evil?I am (not yet) making any judgement on the goodness or otherwise of Gods actions in this example. I am asking you to explain yours.Why is that so hard for you to do?

Hi, Straggler. You know, I'm not sure I have decided on a particular extent (yet).Bear with me as a explain a bit of my theology here. I have always thought that God has a specific purpose in relation to us, which is to provide us a way to salvation. He doesn't always tell us the purposes of everything else in the universe, such as quasars or the inhabitants of whatever other worlds He may have created: He restricts His communication with us to that which pertains to our part in the great plan.So, when He says He has all power, it's still just in context of our part in this great plan of His. Essentially, He's saying, "I can do anything that you will ever need me to do for your salvation."

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Bluejay wrtitesSince we both believe in God and are not worried about the eternality of the universe or whatever. A better way to ask the question that stragler asked, would be, what else could there be besides God, his eternality or omnipotence. In other words if some thing existed outside of or independant of God, he would not be God?Maybe you could explain it from this context.D Bertot

Hi, Bertot. Yes, maybe I could.And, my answer is:"You know, I'm not sure I have decided on a particular answer (yet)."Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hi, OM. Does this paradox go away when there is only one omnipotent being, though? Look what happens when I replace “Bluejay” with “Open MInd” in the above quote: So, how does restricting the number of omnipotent beings resolve the paradox?It doesn’t: the paradox has nothing to do with how many agents are involved in the situation. The ability to "do anything" contradicts ones own ability to "do anything" just as much as it contradicts someone else’s ability to "do anything." So, the paradox is still there when there is only one being that is able to "do anything."The argument that God can do anything is inherently paradoxical. To get around this, you would have us keep the argument, but just forbid it from producing paradoxes, even though paradoxes are the inevitable result of the argument when it is correctly applied.You are saying that it is logical to maintain this paradoxical argument by simply forbidding the paradox. But, the paradox is not the offender: the argument that created the paradox is the offender. The paradox is just the inevitable artifact of the flawed argument. You cannot get rid of the paradox unless you get rid of the argument that created the paradox.-----So, the only way you can say that there are no paradoxes due to omnipotence is if omnipotence doesn’t exist (at least in the strictest sense”“sensu stricto" in scientific jargon). You and I both seem to agree that omnipotence, sensu stricto, does not exist. But, you have shown that you are unable to apply it consistently across the board: you believe that God cannot limit omnipotence, but, if another omnipotent being existed, that being could limit omnipotence.It you were to apply it consistently, you would come up with this argument: Or this one: Either way, God can create another omnipotent being.Whether He would want to or not is another question entirely.-----P.S. Putting the word "cannot" in quotation marks doesn't change what it means: you're still putting a limit on God's abilities.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Well that is refreshingly honest. And potentially open minded Does "He say" he has "all power"? Is that a biblical based conclusion or your own interpretation?
I'm not convinced that we need "salvationing".
Do you think we all do always need salvationing? Is there any chance God could be made redundent?Just to be clear - Your view seems different to other theists here. Whilst I won't pretend to agree I am not asking these questions as some sort of debating trick. Genuinely interested in your unique sounding PoV.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi, Straggler. I wouldn't call it my own interpretation: it's more like one possibility that I'm willing to consider (others being that these were just add-ons by the writer for some sort of dramatic effect, or that the stories are purely allegorical to maintain an air of austerity, or something). It is my preferred interpretation.But, it’s biblically supported, e.g.: But, I'm not married to biblical accuracy, either.God also identifies Himself as "the Almighty" in the Book of Mormon and other Mormon scriptures. Whether or not these are His actual words, or just someone's dressing up of the words to make them sound like austere revelation is a topic I don't wish to try and sort out. I also don't want to discuss whether "Almighty" means something different from “immortal” or whether it was translated correctly: I mean, I could only assert my opinion, because there’s no way to actually prove it. I try to avoid headaches wherever I can. Well, the Mormon word is "exaltation," which correlates to "becoming a God." And, you only need it if you want to be a God, I guess. Unlike most Mormons, I’m not so sure whether I believe the Atonement is actual or allegorical. I don’t care, either way, just as long as the guy saying it can give me the power to be with my wife throughout eternity and create worlds (and Gods) of my own in the next life. You mean, could there be multiple Gods filling the same function?I don't know. We believe Gods are lined up in a patriarchal order, with each being "subsidiary" to their "father" God (the God that created them in mortality). Maybe there is a sort of overlap of "father" and "grandfather" powers, but the Church (wisely) tries to avoid this kind of discussion. Our leaders don't spend a lot of time emphasizing the exact nature of the next life, so we all just speculate on what it will be like (actually, most of us probably just don't even think about it, but some of us, including my family, are more intellectually ambitious by heredity, so we speculate all the time ).Basically, we believe all Gods to be united in purpose, at least in regards to the development of mortal beings, so whether or not they overlap each other isn't really a big issue. I suspect there is a parceling up of "territories" though, just to prevent what little conflict there could be (e.g., to stop Almighty Rufus from sending a destroying angel to Almighty Hal's world because He thinks Hal is too subtle ... that sort of thing)Here's what I speculate: “Godliness” is just extremely advanced science that has achieved all powers that are physically possible to achieve. Our God is able to regulate access to all of His knowledge, and gets to set up a system of tests whereby we prove ourselves worthy of access, upon which we can achieve all of His knowledge. Then, we are Gods, and can do the same for the mortal beings we create. How we do it is another question that I won’t try to answer until I've learned a few more millenia worth of physics. Just out of curiosity---have you ever met two theists that fully agree about the nature and capabilities of God?I certainly haven't. A lot of mainstream Christians won’t let Mormons calls ourselves Christians. And, a lot of mainstream Mormons probably wouldn't let me call myself a Mormon. I wouldn't mind: I don't have enough of a case to debate the particulars, anyway. I'd probably end up answering, "I don't know," to half of the arguments you brought up, anyway. It would probably be more frustrating for you than for me. When I said I would be happy to debate the logic of my position, I meant from the perspective of omnipotence/non-omnipotence. I very much doubt my ability to logically support my religion without making the assumptions that God lives and there is such a thing as sin.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

I am only pointing out to you that you cannot show any paradox without first giving a definition of good and evil. You seem to assume that love, compassion, and loyalty are good things, and you therefore think you have some sort of paradox. However, you already admit that you have no definition of good and evil. How can you have a paradox when you are using words that you don't know how to define? I have already explained my point of view.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

Now you are making an unsupported assumption. You say that something cannot be perfect if it has limitations. Please draw the logical bridge here.

And your point of view is that good is whatever God does. Even if he's killing your own children that'd be good, cause by definition god does good.

Something that has flaws(limitations to his omnipotence) cannot be perfect. Perfect means without flaws. Limitations to an Almighty God is flaws.

I think he's asking if God can be made unnecessary(British English)