Can God create another God?

I must thank you for posting this one. You admit in this post that you do not believe that G-d is omnipotent. But my entire point of all of our discussion was that the existence of two omnipotent beings is not possible. This is proven by the paradox that will result if two omnipotent beings did exist. You clearly agree with me, but you reject the possiblility of an omnipotent being all together. Since your god is not omnipotent, he can kill himself. Even further, you can kill him too.

You are entitled to your opinions. But, don't try to disprove G-d by making up your own fantasy. It will get you nowhere.Just a side question, Is that avatar a picture of you and your wife?
Also, why can't I kill your daughter. You made it, I broke it. I will pay you for it or make one for you. Or, better yet, you can always make another one. I see nothing evil. It sounds like business.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

You cannot claim to know what you are talking about when you mention the words good or evil. You may have the definition that I already put forward for atheists: Good is what I like, and Bad is what I don't like. Can you see the problem with this. I like one thing, and you may like something else. Please give a valid definition for good and bad that will be universal (other than the definition that I gave you). In short when you oppose G-d, you are doing something evil. I hope that answers your question. Now please try to give me your definition of good and evil.

Sorry, you are continuing to show your ignorance of religions. It is written in the Torah that if someone causes another person to become ill, he must pay his "doctor bills." The Torah clearly says that people should go to doctors and not rely on what would be called a miracle. Keep asking, you may learn something.Now a question of equal strength. Why do you go to doctors? If you are sick, why don't you let evolution take its course? Medicine is bad for evolution because it allows the unfit to survive. This is preventing the evolution of humans. We would be a much better species if we would just cut out the medicine.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

I will answer you again in the same manner. The conclusion to this paradox is that omnipotence must only exist in one being. What is so hard here? If something is omnipotent it can do anything. This includes limiting anything else in the entire universe. The existence of another omnipotent being is a paradox. They could each theoretically limit the other; otherwise they would each have limits of power. But limiting an omnipotent being does not fit with the definition of omnipotence. The only way to make logic out of this is to say that the existence of two omnipotent beings is not logical.Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.

You are demonstrating you lack of knowledge, and your apathetic nature towards religion. I wrote clearly in my post that G-d wants us to go to doctors. In fact, the rule is that only three commandments in the Torah will stand in the way of a life threatening situation. A Jew is supposed to eat pork if that is all he can eat to survive. G-d also does not produce miracles because that would remove the free will to sin. Imagine what your life would be like if G-d sent lightning into every sinner. Would you sin? Imagine what your life would be like if all the good people had good lives and the bad people had bad lives. You would have to be fool to even contemplate sinning. G-d actually cures people through the physics of nature. Also, what makes the scientists think of medicines? Did you hear the story about the discovery of penicillin? If G-d controls the world, then he can heal people by manipulating the brains of the scientists in order to create new cures. Contrary to all other religions, Judaism is completely logical, and there is absolutely no hypocrisy. You have an agenda that blinds you from understanding what I am trying to say. The world was made to allow for sin. If G-d would control the world in a way that seemed completely miraculous, even you would never sin. Furthermore, the world is working in a very miraculous manner as it is. Even if G-d answered every prayer in a miraculous manner, you would develop a scientific reason for why prayer works. G-d does not act in a random manner, and therefore anything you see you will explain in terms of scientific fact. You don't even notice what you are doing with a world that seems completely miraculous to anyone with an open mind. You can theoretically take any act of G-d, no matter how improbable it may be, and explain it in terms of scientific fact.

I have given up on explaining my point to Bluejay. He seems to not be understanding clear logic. Can someone else in this discussion give their own opinion on who is being more logical. Bluejay, please do not respond to this post. I want other people to give there opinion. I want everyone to look carefully at post 99 and see if they understand what Bluejay is trying to say. Then look at my posts, and see what I have to say. This debate is purely theoretical, and it does not matter what your actual beliefs are. I want someone to verify who is being more logical here.

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.

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.

I did not say he had to be omnipotent. Therefore, you are making up your own definition and putting in your own flaws.