Is it possible for God to create another omniscient & omnipotent being?

[Amorphos]

Is it possible for God to create another omniscient & omnipotent being? [idea for thread got from ilp forums]

Based on my understanding of the definition of omniscient & omnipotent, it would not be impossible for God to do this.

If he did he would not be ‘the’ omniscient & omnipotent being! If there is such a potentiality does that not infer a contradiction within the very meaning of such terms? ..and hence in the idea of a god of such meanings.

Note; this does not necessarily mean god doesn’t exist, it could meant that we need to re-evaluate what we think he is.



>

[Tyler_the_Great]

hmm, that is an interusting idea. Not sure.

[Gaidin]

Is it possible for God to create another omniscient & omnipotent being? [idea for thread got from ilp forums]

Based on my understanding of the definition of omniscient & omnipotent, it would not be impossible for God to do this.

If he did he would not be ‘the’ omniscient & omnipotent being! If there is such a potentiality does that not infer a contradiction within the very meaning of such terms? ..and hence in the idea of a god of such meanings.

Note; this does not necessarily mean god doesn’t exist, it could meant that we need to re-evaluate what we think he is.



>

Yes. Welcome to paradox land. Were we to assume God exists, and that he is omni-X, he could indeed create such another being. This is demonstrated by said god theoretically creating man and giving them free will. If he has the ability to take away free will, they never had it anyway.

[Amorphos]

If we result denies the premise, surely the very meanings are defunct. it’s a hard one to explain but if the quality of omnipotence means you can make its equal, then it no longer has the same meaning. Two gods denies all the attributes of monotheism surely?

not sure if absolutes can be paradoxical, they either are or are not so, thats the whole point of them.

[Amorphos]

I think we could also say that a good and right [correct] god may only create good and right things, hence is not omnipotent.

Whatever attributes we give god are equally his limits.

To create the universe one has to create things exactly as required to make a universe, you cannot just make anything or else you wont have the universe as it stands.

Not to mention that any mechanism by which one creates a universe no longer needs a god to create it.

[Cooraan]

If you are talking about the Christian God then he's not really omnipotent. Not with the definition most people use anyways. God can not sin, God can not force you to love. I think originally, it was used to describe His power (like He could destroy the universe on a whim), which I think is a bit odd. I think it's dumb for people to use it in a literal sense, because it just creates paradoxes.

[Iustinianus]

This is just the question "can God make a force so strong that he cannot resist it, can God make a circular square, can God make a rock so heavy that he cannot lift it" question rephrased.

And the answer is simple (at least for me, what you think may vary): No God cannot make another omnipotent and all powerful God, and still remain an omnipotent and all powerful God as well.

Because this would contradict the very nature of God, a logical being. The ability to perform tasks which inherently have no logical meaning do not belong in the definition of omnipotence in my opinion. God can do many things, some of which are impossible for humans, but that doesn't mean that God can do things which make no rational sense. No God cannot make a rock so heavy that even God cannot lift it, nor make a circular square, or make another separate and equally powerful God, because in all of these examples God would be contradicting all logic, which as a rationale being, is not possible.

(On the off-chance that God does not exist, I'm very well aware of how ridiculous this whole discussion and my response may seem to some people)

[Orko]

If he does, can the new being cancel god?

[basics]

Quetzalcoatl,

Don't you think that there is only one Person who could possibly give you an answer so why not ask Him?

[Mythos]

Quetzalcoatl,

Don't you think that there is only one Person who could possibly give you an answer so why not ask Him?

Because, historically, he has been very, very reluctant to do so even when serious questions about wars, famines, natural disasters where extended to him(?). In fact, you could safely say that given all the effort put into these questions and the total lack of response to them, we might even suppose that this entity is either not there, or it simply does not give a .

[Dan the Man]

Sure, if He really wanted to I don't see why not, though I doubt He would have much motivation to do so...

Because, historically, he has been very, very reluctant to do so even when serious questions about wars, famines, natural disasters where extended to him(?). In fact, you could safely say that given all the effort put into these questions and the total lack of response to them, we might even suppose that this entity is either not there, or it simply does not give a .

Who said He hasn't answered any of those questions?

[Taiji]

Dan the Man, what is the answer according to God?

[Amorphos]

This is more questioning the attributes like omnipotence that we ascribe to god, it’s a philosophical position that seemingly contradicts itself. Its an ‘if he could, then he cannot’ problem.

Orko

If he does, can the new being cancel god?

Haha nice one!

basics

Don't you think that there is only one Person who could possibly give you an answer so why not ask Him?

I did, he said stop confusing me you :wub:.
srsl
If we could for sure talk to god as like we do one another, then I would, unfortunately we cannot and I don’t know what asking questions in and to your own brain can achieve?

.

[Col. Tartleton]

Well first, we suppose a being has unlimited power, total awareness of everything ever, and exists in all places and at all times constantly. We then make the leap that such God is good; no, perfect.

As nothing in this world is perfect, even if such a God exists, he is not here. That implies deism at most and atheist at least. That, is the issue. Either God is not all powerful (and thus not fitting with the modern notion of God) or not involved/not real.

God is a paradox, never-mind if he can make an equal.

[Taiji]

Well first, we suppose a being has unlimited power, total awareness of everything ever, and exists in all places and at all times constantly. We then make the leap that such God is good; no, perfect.

As nothing in this world is perfect, even if such a God exists, he is not here. That implies deism at most and atheist at least. That, is the issue. Either God is not all powerful (and thus not fitting with the modern notion of God) or not involved/not real.

God is a paradox, never-mind if he can make an equal.

You have to make up rules in order to make something perfect, and then it's perfection is really just a story the rules tell about it.

[Invictus XII]

Well, firstly, the Christian God does not have unlimited power. As Christians we learn he cannot sin, cannot force anything upon anyone or tempt, hence giving us absolute free-will. Which then leads to the parts of our lives and our past that we ask, where was God then, but God doesn't have the power to control any-ones free will, nor take anyones free-will away. Which is why bad things do happen, because man cannot be sinless.

If we are talking of a new theological limitless God, then continue with your paradoxing thread

[Tacitursa]

I don't think so and if there is a god i think even it is bound by laws like everything else. Nothing is above the system

[Monarchist]

God's nature is, itself, pure existence. He is the only substance that is truly real, the only essence that needs no other essence to create or sustain it. God's perfection rests in the fact not that God is glorious or majestic (adjectives), but in that He is Glory and Majesty (nouns), though being One Sentient Being. The most mind-boggling thing to contemplate is: God is all of His attributes, and all His attributes are totally simple, blended into one attribute, which is Himself. His essential nature is to exist, and His existence is His very essence; contrarily, we humans have an essential nature which is not to exist. We all come from - and are driving toward - non-existence, and that is essentially our natural state. God's natural state is to exist. His essence is to lack non-existence. Non-existence is not in God's purview or 'parameters' (were He to have any). He has no circumstances. He has no predicates. All existence is predicated on His existence.

Once the above notions are firmly established, it becomes easy to see that there cannot be another being that is omniscient and omnipotent. Please distinguish between "God cannot do it" and "it cannot be done". If God did not exist, this hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent being would be God. If God were to create it, however, God would not be God: because there would be another being extant that has divine attributes, which would then nullify God's own unique essence (which is to exist), meaning He isn't God anyway. This paradox isn't some clever wrap-around, but an easily refuted non-entity of an argument. It's not that God cannot do it; it's that the very nature of reality makes the idea stupid and impossible.

The answer to the question "can God create a boulder so heavy He could not lift it?" is, as always: "there's no such thing as a boulder so heavy God could not lift it; consequently, it cannot be created here, now, or ever, in any reality or by any power because it is a contradiction". In the same and likewise fashion, two omnipotent and omnipresent beings simply cannot exist; logically, causally, and metaphysically, it is an impossibility. This puts no constraints on God, but is a proposition at the very foundation of being itself. God does not contradict.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

God does not contradict.

Yes.

Atheistic arguments usually criticize the principle of omnipotence by making a caricature of it. It all then boils down to definitions, and to concepts themselves.

[Taiji]

Yes.

Atheistic arguments usually criticize the principle of omnipotence by making a caricature of it. It all then boils down to definitions, and to concepts themselves.

To be fair you really don't have to do anything with omnipotence to make a caricature out of it. It's already exaggerated well past ridiculous before you even start.