Can God create another God?

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.

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

Straggler writes Open Mind writes Fine. Everything God does is good. By definition. However my question stands. If I oppose God damning someone to eternal damnation, for example, out of compassion, love and loyalty am I sinning by opposing God?It is a simple question.
I have not claimed to know what is good or evil aside from your definition.I have simply asked if I oppose God on grounds of compassion, love and loyalty if I am sinning? By you definition.Why is it so hard for you to just answer?

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

God is good. All the actions of God are good. All that opposes God is evil.That is my definition for the purposes of this debate. Do you agree or disagree? Well are they bad things? Love, forgiveness, compassion, loyalty. Are these not the teachings of the bible? I have defined good and evil. See above. No you have not. That is why I keep on asking the same question.If I oppose God condemning people to eternal damnation on the grounds of love, forgiveness, compassion and loyalty am I evil?By the definition of good and evil I gave above the answer is "yes".So what is your defintion of good and evil? What is your answer to the question of opposing God on the basis of love, compassion, forgiveness and loyalty? Is this evil?Simple question. Stop playing games. Stop declaring that you have answered the question when you have not. Just try answering the question.The truth can always be questioned. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the world is geting increasingly more comfortable as belief and interest in God wanes then would we not be better off without him altogether?

So good is whatever God does? Evil is whatever opposes?So good and evil can change their exact meaning depending on God's "mood". No?If God is being vengeful, jealous, retributional or unforgiving then these things are "good" and we should follow this example. Right?How do we know what is good and what is evil?Unless of course we claim to know the mind of God at any given moment

So the Torah defines good and evil then. Fine.Does God herself obey these teachings or are her actions immune to such judgement?The only way you can claim God is either good or omnipotent is by the circular reasoning of defining good and omnipotent in terms of God.And then things get messy...........

Ahhhh but I do. They are just not relevant to the omnipotence or goodness of God which is the subject of this thread So if God is the definition of good and the Torah tells us what is good and what is evil what happens if the actions of God contradict the Torah? Which are we to believe and how do you know which of the two to follow?

I concede that my knowledge of Judaism is very limited. Are you saying that at no point has God ever done any of the things that the Torah tells us we should not do? I don't think I have done a non-God morality thread for quite some time. I definitely have taken part in such threads previously however.Lets not drag this thread down that route. Feel free to start a new one if you so wish. But as a brief aside, do you really think the non-religious have no concept of right and wrong? No morality at all?