Can God create another God?

Hi, Open MInd. But, the whole point of my post was that alternative systems of logic simply cannot exist. Logic is not an extension of the human thought process: it is a way to reason without resorting to your own thoughts. It's formulaic, so it always works the same for the same problem no matter who's doing the reasoning.Saying that there are alternatives to our system of logic is the same as saying there are alternative answers to 2 + 2.The only place where the human mental capacity comes into play is in formulating the initial premises of a particular problem, but once those are in place, the conclusion is inevitable. We have not agreed on this yet. In fact, this is the very point that we're debating. So, it shouldn't come as a surprise to you that I don't accept this as evidence for your argument.Since I didn't continue my argument properly, let me try to do so now.You argued, in Message 43, that the existence of two all-powerful beings cause both to no longer be all-powerful, because either one would paradoxically be capable of limiting the other's power.I admit that I did not properly rebut this. So, here is my rebuttal:You have stipulated, for your argument, that God's inability to limit His own omnipotence does not diminish His omnipotence.Why can this trait not be generalized?We could then say, "Omnipotence does not include the ability to limit omnipotence."Why should it apply differently to another being than it does to oneself?----- Challenge accepted. I don't know where to go with this. I still haven't agreed with you that there is a problem inherent in this situation, and I'm not sure how to begin speculating on how any God would go about fixing any such problem.And, just so you know, the Mormon perspective is that every human being is really a god, at least in a sort of embryonic form.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Hello Bluejay,
Thank you for your response I understand what you were trying to say. I actually tried to start a whole new thread with relative logic as the topic of debate. Unforetunately, it was not promoted. You must understand that the concept of sound does not really exist without organisms with ears. This does not mean that sound waves do not exist. There is a disturbance that can be measured by a computer without being heard by an organism. This, however, is not the concept of sound. In fact if no living being would exist in the entire world, or no being had what we call ears, the idea of sound would logically not exist. Therefore, we can make the same argument for logic itself. You can not seem to get off the notion that logic is something that absolutely exists even without the existance of humans, space, time, or matter. But you must understand that this is just an assumption. You have no way of proving that an absolute set of logic exists. The reason for your not being able to imagine another system of logic stems from the fact that what you have to think with, the human brain, is using this system of logic in order to make you think the way you do. Your fealing of "that is absolutely logical" can be correlated with some chemical or electrical process in your brain. If this process was different, you really would feel that other things are logical, when average humans will call them illogical. It is absurd to think that our brain is producing absolute logic. That is exactly what I am saying. It is interesting to point out that there is a mathematical proof for 1 + 1 = 2, and it is not a mathematical postulate. The mathematical postulates are not possibly proven, and they are considered the most basic and logical concepts. However, these concepts are just that, postulates. This means that there is no proof of their correctness other than saying that this is the most simple building block of human logic. It is an assumption based on the chemical processes of the brain. Sorry, I honestly do not understand this. Please clarify.

Hi, Open MInd. All right: I was worried that this wouldn't be clear.You argue that God cannot do something that limits Himself. I have basically just asked you for the logical basis of this caveat.I argue that your caveat is completely arbitrary.To rebut, you should be able to show me a basic principle that supports your caveat.Examples of such principles include:(a) That there is a paradox when a being uses a certain power to limit that same power.(b) That omnipotence is, by definition, unlimitable.I can’t think of any other legitimate principles beyond these two. But, these two are easily rebutted:(a) While there could conceivably be a paradox in God’s creation of a rock that He cannot lift, the only “paradox” resulting from God’s creation of a being that could limit His power is indirect. So, the actual act of creating that being is not the event that actually limits God's power, so that act does not, in and of itself, create a paradox.In order to use this logic anyway, you would have to promote another principle that would forbid all actions of God that could even indirectly result in a limitation on God’s power. And, there are myriad ways in which any action God would take could eventually, indirectly lead to a limitation on God’s power. So, this principle would effectively have to forbid God from taking any action at all. Any other line drawn would be completely arbitrary.(b) If omnipotence is, by definition, unlimitable, and there are two beings which are omnipotent, then, also by definition, neither one of them would have the ability to do something that limits the other’s omnipotence.You have said that it is no sacrifice to God's omnipotence that He cannot limit Himself. So, why would it then be a sacrifice to His omnipotence if He could not limit another omnipotent being?-----You may very well be able to think of alternative principles. If so, I await them eagerly. If not, I await your rebuttal to my existing argument(s).Edited by Bluejay, : Clarifications.Edited by Bluejay, : Undid a "clarification" because it was stupid.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Can God lie?
Can God do evil?
If God is good and all that does is by definition good and righteous then -When God is being retributional, vengeful or jealous is he being "good"?If all that opposes God is sinful and unrighteous then -When someone opposes the retributional, vengeful or jealous God out of compassion, love and loyalty they are being sinful. Yes?It seems to me God's abilities and actions are a matter of deep contradiction.

No, the definition of absolute truth is the word of G-d. No, you have to realize that what may seem bad to you is not necessarily evil. A good example is a person who does not make an airplane flight. He thinks it is evil. But then, the airplane crashes. Was this event evil. Similarly, if you believe in an after life, even is not evil. G-d does NOT do evil. If you are well versed in the Torah, you may bring me some verses that seem to say that G-d created evil. This however, means that G-d created man with the free will of doing evil. Yes. However, all of these things are actually written in a manner that humans can understand. Nothing can understand the true attributes of G-d other than G-d himself. How do you explain the verse in the Torah that talks about the hand of G-d or the mouth of G-d. It is written that way so that people can understand it.

I think it is simple to say that if two gods did exist, and both were omnipotent, theoretically speaking they could each "kill" the other one. If you can create it you can destroy it. Not only will the first god be limited it would be completely destroyed. Now out of your two choices I choose (b). With regard to your rebuttal: All you have done with this statement is proven that it is not possible to have two omnipotent beings. Following your line of logic, we may have an infinite amount of omnipotent beings. Included in that infinite number may be yourself. You would be completely omnipotent. But, since everything else in the world is also completely omnipotent, you cannot limit anything in the world. In fact, you cannot act at all since you would need permission from all the other beings before you would be able to act. This would be exactly the opposite of omnipotence. I hope you see through this example that the definition of omnipotence is completely lost when another being may have the same thing.

When someone opposes the retributional, vengeful or jealous God out of compassion, love and loyalty are they being sinful?

Hi, Open MInd. Could God kill Himself?If so, then you have admitted that God can do something that limits (destroys) Himself, which completely defeats the argument you are presenting.If not, you have set up an inconsistent rule: God can kill one omnipotent being (His rival), but not another (Himself). Why does the rule apply differently to different omnipotent beings?

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

So if god tried to kill your kids, you wouldn't try to protect them? What's more precious to you - your kids or the killing machine named god?

I will tell you what I have told others: READ THE REST OF THE POST.
I already explained and answered your problem. You have a different understanding of bad and good. Your definition of good would sound something like: Good is anything that I think is good, and bad is anything that I think is bad. Now I hope nobody here goes as low as doing something like this: This is kind of what you just did, but that is a side issue. My point is that if G-d does something it is by definition good. The evil that exists is the result of human beings. When a human acts vengeful or is jealous, he is doing something that is bad because G-d said that it is bad for humans to do such things. Obviously there is a big difference between the vengful or jealous nature of humans and that of G-d. Otherwise humans would be doing nothing wrong. As a side issue, I would like it if you would clarify where you see vengence or jealousy in G-d. I may have answered your question in the previous post, but I may not have if you are thinking of something else.

Either you are not understand my point, or you are chosing not to listen to it. Let me clarify, your arguments are just proving that the existence of two omnipotent beings is not possible. You are only helping my arguement by showing how a paradox would exist if there were two omnipotent beings. Also, I want to know what you have to say about the rest of my post. It made perfect sense, and you did not comment on it. I show that according to your principles of what omnipotence is, everyone in the entire world can be omnipotent. This is of course absurd. Try to see it from my point of view and I think you will understand.

Hi Agobot,
I hope you see how I have answered your question. On a side note I would like to point out that your topic question is a very common one. It has been answered years ago in the manner that I have shown you, and just asking it again as a means of disproving G-d, shows that you have not been doing your homework. Regarding your latest question, first read my reply to Straggler. Next, I must add that you have no knowledge of G-d other than what you have thought of on your own. Unforetunately, your god is a strawman, and I have made that point already in this thread. You create a version of god that is disproven with baby logic. This only shows that your understanding is flaud, it does not make any proof.

Think of G-d as a life machine, not a killing machine. Every moment of your life exists because of G-d's will. Therefore, G-d does not have to kill anyone because nobody is alive without the will of G-d. If He stops willing your existence, you will cease to exist. This is not even death. This means you completely disappear. "Tried" is not even a real thing when you are refering to G-d. Furthermore, who gave you your children? Who sustains their lives? Your question shows that you have a wrong perspective.

I thought it was common knowledge that Gaea created lots of other gods?This takes me back to when I was really young and used to read books on Greek Mythology and Ancient Egypt under the bedclothes with a torch.Ah, those were the days!

Hi, Open MInd.----- The question that I have asked three times is my comment on the rest of your post. But, have it your way: I can't believe you can't see this. This hypothetical scenario is an extrapolation of YOUR OWN ARGUMENT!!!Let’s go through your reasoning process again: Why can’t God create another God?Because an omnipotent being cannot be limited, and creating another God would limit Him.How would creating another God limit the original God?Because two omnipotent beings could limit each other.Do you not see how this line of reasoning just used two completely contradictory concepts to support it? The two statements in blue are the complete opposite of one another, yet both must be true in order for your argument to stand. {AbE: So, omnipotent beings must be both unlimitable and able to limit one another.} Therefore, your argument is logically flawed.The only possible redemption of this argument is that an omnipotent being could limit another omnipotent being, but not itself. Thus, when you wrote: I immediately responded with: Which prompted you to accuse me of having not read the rest of your post.-----Further, you have attempted to support the view that the rules apply differently to oneself than to others by putting up a hypothetical scenario in which the entire universe consists only of omnipotent beings. While this would be quite weird, indeed, I see no reason why it is paradoxical or even problematic: in fact, even if it were problematic, it would only be so for your argument, because your argument is the one that requires a distinction to be made between the rules about limiting oneself and limiting others.-----I have not really put forth an argument of my own yet, but, just to make it fair, my argument is that God is not omnipotent, and that He can therefore create another God without any paradox or contradiction. That is my real, honest standpoint, not just a sarcastic quip. Prove to me that that is an illogical standpoint.Edited by Bluejay, : Clarification.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.