Can God create another God?

I'll try to explain my view on this one more time.If there is an omnipotent god, he can create another one that is just as powerful, if not more powerful then he is. He can then also destroy this more powerful being in the blink of an eye. He can create a being that limits him, he can then also go past those limitations.I guess this makes it very clear. If god is omnipotent, god can do literally ANYTHING. Yes, it's not logical, yes it makes no sense, but that doesn't matter. Omnipotence is not bound by logic.Hope this helps

---

I hunt for the truth

No it doesn't make it clear cause the second more powerful god(HOW SO?) may kill the creator and then commit suicide(being able to to do ANYTHING). This sounds funny but it also sounds somewhat logical given the abscense of evidence for any god now and the absurdity of all other explanations presented so far.
There are currently 34 000 religions, maybe it's time I laid the foundations of a new one - about the god that committed suicide and left no evidence, leaving us on Autopilot.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi, Bertot. Actually, no. Both of those are Open MInd's arguments. Look, he says that God cannot be limited, so that must mean that any other omnipotent being is out of the question, because such a being could limit Him. Yet, he doesn't seem to understand that the two crucial parts of his argument---"[the rival] could limit Him," and, "[He] cannot be limited"---are contradictory, yet both must be true to support his argument.-----Again, for the record, I have stated that I do not believe that God is strictly omnipotent, and will gladly argue why I think it is a logical belief. But, I have not been using that argument (yet) on this thread, so my argumentation has been solely against the logic of Open Mind's position.My argument, so far, has only been that Open Mind's logic is fallacious.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Because an omnipotent god can do anything, also create a ,ore powerful entity, and then still be more powerful then it. [qs]may kill the creator and then commit suicide(being able to to do ANYTHING). Seems you're getting my point. Logic doesn't apply. Please do, sounds like the most reasonable so far .

I am intrigued. To what extent do you believe God is powerful if not omnipotent? Yep.

The way I see it they are not. An omnipotent being can create something that limits him, it can also ovecome those limitations. I assume you're talking abou the christian god. I'm not, I'm talking about an omnipotent being. If you think you know that your god's not omnipotent, I have no argument with you, I'm not a christian. My point is merely that any being that is omnipotent can do anything at all, logic does not apply

Hi, Huntard. Which is exactly the paradox that Open Mind believes is alleviated by having only one omnipotent being. An omnipotent God that fits OM's definition can break any rule, including Open Mind's rule that omnipotence cannot do anything that would result in it's own limitation.Note, once again, that I am not arguing from a perspective that there is a logical answer to this dilemma. Open Mind believes that he has solved the long-standing omnipotence paradox by introducing a simple caveat. Yet, the logical framework to support his caveat is itself paradoxical, and therefore doesn't resolve the issue, as he thinks it does.

---

-BluejayDarwin loves you.

Then could he potentially limit his power? Can he turn into a less powerful being that would not have the ability to be god again(if he really wanted to cease to be god and everlasting and omnipowerful)? Or are you saying that god cannot limit himself(by becoming a non powerful being) and thus becomes not so omnipotent?Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

This idea is nothing new - Thomas Altizer made a movement in the 1960's - "the death of god". While teaching at Emory, Altizer's religious views were featured in two Time magazine articles in 1965 and 1966. The latter issue was published at Easter time, and its cover asked in bold red letters on a plain black background, "Is God Dead?"Altizer has repeatedly claimed that scorn, outcry, and even death threats he received were misplaced. On a pure level, Altizer's religious proclamation viewed God's death (really a self-extinction) as a process that began at the world's creation and came to an end through Jesus Christ”whose crucifixion in reality poured out God's full spirit into this world.

Just the kind of response I was expecting from you. You do not even pretend to give off the impression of having read what I wrote. Why don't you ask your daughter to explain it to you?

What if I would tell you people that I could do anything. Now one of you would come to me and say that I was lying. Then you would explain that there is one thing that I cannot do; I cannot not do anything. Because the word "cannot" is in this sentence, it shows that there is something that I cannot do. In reality, all you have done is played around with the English language. You have not shown any true limitation. This is similar to saying:"You cannot "do anything" because you cannot stop yourself from being able to do anything." Now just for the record, I did not make the claim that G-d can do anything. You can all look at my original post where I clearly explain that G-d is complete perfection. I did not admit that G-d can do anything that people can think of. Therefore, there is no paradox from my point of view. If you enjoy thinking of things that G-d cannot do, by all means think away. You are only creating a paradox in your own definition of G-d.

This is just so simple that I don't even know why this debate is continuing. Suppose Open MInd and Bluejay are both omnipotent. We can both do anything imaginable. I start by doing things. I start to create lifeforms. Bluejay starts to destroy all of the lifeforms that I have created. Since I can do anything, I decide to create a lifeforms that are completely indestructible. Have I just placed a limit on Bluejay? He can no longer do anything. Since these lifeforms are completely indestructible, even Bluejay cannot destroy them. However, Bluejay is more clever than Open MInd, and he is still able to destroy these lifeforms. This is because, as said earlier, Bluejay is able to do anything, even destroy indestructible things. Now, however, Open MInd is not able to do whatever he wants. This is because Bluejay can destroy anything that Open MInd creates. It is not possible, therefore, that Open MInd and Bluejay are both able to do anything.

Please give your definition of good and evil.
Please look at my original post where I clearly give my definition of G-d, and I do "not" say that He can "do anything". I explain that G-d by definition is a Being with all means of perfection, and no imperfection. As is clear, the ability to do anything at all (even ) is not considered perfection. I only assert that if G-d would create another Being, that would limit His perfection.

Did you even read what you were writing? How can an omnipotent being cede anything. It would have to retain all of its omnipotents in order to remain omnipotent. What I am saying is not an assumption, but it is a logical equivalent.

quote:

---

Did you even read what you were writing?

---

I know you find it impossible to believe that people could disagree with you,but I did indeed mean to say exactly what I said.

quote:

---

How can an omnipotent being cede anything.

---

Given that it is omnipotent the question should be why it would be unable to do it. In the absence of a good reason (and "it would succeed" is not a good reason !) we should assume that it can do it.

quote:

---

It would have to retain all of its omnipotents in order to remain omnipotent.

---

Since "not remaining omnipotent" is the intent your objection is not valid. Did you even read what you wrote ?

quote:

---

What I am saying is not an assumption, but it is a logical equivalent.

---

It's not an assumption but it is the logical equivalent of an assumption ? What is it then ?Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.