Can God create another God?

Hello open mind, I just have a question about your veiw of god. You say that god can do anything so long as it does not place a limit of what god is. Isn't this statement contradictory to itself however? You are placing a limit on god by saying that, god can not do anything that limits himself. Not being able to do anything to limit himself is in fact a limit. So god would not be able to do that either.

You are probably correct in your statement that it is a language problem in understanding. However when you same that god can not not limit itself, than you are saying that god can limit itself. Which you said it can not do. It is contradictory to itself. It does not imply unlimited power or else you wouldn't be able to place any qualifiers on god in the first place. I believe that no human can place any qualifiers on god since no one can know god, but that is my personal opinion.

The logical reason for the belief I stated is quite simple. It is also one that I belive you would agree with. It is very much similer to the first message you posted hear in which you describe that nothing that humans can concieve of is able to limit god. I believe, same as yourself (from what I take from your posts) that no human can understand the nature of god. It would be like a single ant being able to understand quantum mechanics. So any argument we can concieve of, as to the nature or limitations of god pail in comparison to what god is. It is an argument strictly from the standpoint of humility. I was merely trying to point out that I believe even your statement that god can not do anything that takes away from his perfection is still a limitation that you are placing on god. It is possible that god may function in a logical and illogical manner. What seems common and logical to us today, would have appeared to be miraculous and to defy logic in the past. So we do not have ultimate athority on what exactly is logical and permitable and that which is illogical and forbidden.

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.

I think that one point that you are missing here, is that we are examining these texts from a modern day outlook on life. For people who had no ability to examine geological, archeological evidence, along with a old understanding of physics, these stories seem completly possible. It is only through years of education and cooperation/ sharing of knowledge that humanity has been able to advance our concept of the world around us. We no longer have the same world veiw as our ancestors. We now know there are resonable and natural explenations for what was once attributed to the supernatural. So no it is not unreasonable that many people see the inconsistancies in religious texts as evidence for their unreliability.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ

Agreed, however we have a different perspective on the world that they did not. human logic applied to a world veiw where these occurances seem possible, could very well lead one to believe that they occured. However with our advancement of the sciences we can easily see the areas that make this story inaccuaret or impossible. But we do know that the flood story is more than likely a carry over from the sumarians, so it is entirely possible they borrowed from a story that was already known to people and changed the names in order to try associate this with their own religion. We see the same thing occur when christianity blended with the religions from northern Europe. Inorder to transition people into believing what you believe you borrow their stories and traditions and change the names so it aligns with your beliefs.

---

'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ