[H903]

He can but he won't. He wants to give AIDS to innocent children in Africa himself, the sadist.

[Joeyy1181]

(Original post by Minor6th)
If God were asexual, which I'm assuming he is, he could go through mitosis, so yes he can create another God via budding.

LOOOOL

[colourtheory]

(Original post by GStevens)
You're confusing 'can' with 'would' or 'should', this is about whether it would logically/philosophically be within his power, not whther it would be sensible for him to do it. On that point, if God did do it then, as God is perfect, it would of course be sensible, He cannot do something daft. (ok, the platypus comes close)

Your Deuteronomy quote only says that you should not put other gods before God, the creation of another god would not necessarily cause a conflict with the false idol stuff.

I disagree, I believe that God could could create another in his/her/its image with similar, if not the same, powers. After all, who says that God is such an complex being/spirit that he/she/it cannot be copied or duplicated by itself. That is to say, it may be simple to copy oneself but what would the benefit be. I was simply debating as to whether he/she/it would even bother as God created the world and had the power to do so, why would they create something of equal power if it had no purpose in achieving a greater cause. Because, after all, how could God create something of greater power if God doesn't have that power to bestow in the first place. What purpose would God have in creating another God except to show the extent his/her/its power. How could creating something of equal power give them the means of creating something greater because if God does have unlimited power this would cancel its self out.

If you look at the Bible, God trusted Beelzebub or whatever you know him as; Satan, The Accuser, Abaddon, The Anti-Christ, Lucifer or whatever, the Bible shows that this being was his right hand man before being cast to hell. So, the question is raised as to whether God would create another being because if he/she/it created a being of equal or more power then what would prevent this new God from taking over and proving a larger hazard than the Devil currently provides? At the same time this raises another issue, would God then create a lesser God, then what would be the point of this action if God already has angels at his/hers/its disposal. What proof do we have that God is "out of his depth" when it comes to creating another God? We really have no grasp as to the extent of the power of God (whether or not you believe he/she/it exists).

And as to your last point, I believe that the creation of anther God would definitely count as a false idol as this new God would not have set out the commandments and completed the work which the original God had gotten praise for. So if the new God were to receive praise thousands of years down the line (as history and story telling become distorted the two Gods actions may invariably become blended, so the actions attributed to each one may be false) this would mean that the new God would be a false idol. But then would the people of earth be aware that another God existed or simply mistake the new God's actions as that of the original God?

[GStevens]

(Original post by colourtheory)

I cut the first chunk as I can't see how it refers to my post.

And as to your last point, I believe that the creation of anther God would definitely count as a false idol as this new God would not have set out the commandments and completed the work which the original God had gotten praise for.

Perhaps but just because he was another god would not mean that he had to be worshipped or put before the original god or have images erected etc. His existence alone would not be counter to any of gods commandments.

So if the new God were to receive praise thousands of years down the line (as history and story telling become distorted the two Gods actions may invariably become blended, so the actions attributed to each one may be false) this would mean that the new God would be a false idol.

'may invariably'? Oxymoron much.

Too many ifs and nothing that says this is the inevitable consequence of creating another god. Creation of another god would not, of itself, mean that people would worship it.

But then would the people of earth be aware that another God existed or simply mistake the new God's actions as that of the original God?

You are introducing practical elements into a thought experiment. Is there something that says being aware of the god leads inevitably to worshipping the god? Does a god by definition have to have worshippers, without worshipper would it not be a god?

[colourtheory]

Perhaps but just because he was another god would not mean that he had to be worshipped or put before the original god or have images erected etc. His existence alone would not be counter to any of gods commandments.?

Yes, but over time the actions of each become blended together and distorted. This would happen to the point where people would be unaware of which God caused which miracle/disaster as a result you would either have to blame both or one of them. In which case it is a gamble as to which God you thank/curse for a particular event, as a result the God becomes a false idol to certain emotions and praise/worship.

'may invariably'? Oxymoron much.

I apologize for this but in one of your previous posts you spelt whether: wether.

Too many ifs and nothing that says this is the inevitable consequence of creating another god. Creation of another god would not, of itself, mean that people would worship it.

Maybe, but who is to say that the whole population of people who worship the current God will know the difference between the original and the clone and not end up worshipping the new God out of ignorance. People may also become displeased, maybe because a prayer wasn't answered, and turn to the other God instead. Also, isn't philosophy based almost entirely on "ifs"? Everything has a consequence, "Can God create another God?" Well this results in many "if" questions.

You are introducing practical elements into a thought experiment. Is there something that says being aware of the god leads inevitably to worshipping the god? Does a god by definition have to have worshippers, without worshipper would it not be a god?

I happen to believe my original point stands, would people differentiate the new God's actions from the original's?

Human nature in itself results in people turning to the idea of God, be that by any name. After all "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet". The Native Americans had no contact with Europe but they still had their own God: Wakan Tanka, The Myans had their own deities and so on. Human nature leads people to believe in something (or things) larger than themselves. Your point seems to be countered by this, if people are aware of a God they may not worship the God but due to the selfish nature of humans we always want for things. The movie Bruce Almighty points this out well; so many people had prayed to God asking to win the lottery that the end prize ended up being $17. We are by nature selfish. We prayed for rain thousands of years ago, for example, which was only because it affected out lives directly. Humans have a tendency to find God when it suits them and it usually benefits them in one way or another. For instance, before our own death (not that we can be sure when this is going to occur), or perhaps we pray for recovery from a terminal illness. My point is this: people may become aware of another God but would, in time, pray to it for one reason or another.

I cut the first chunk as I can't see how it refers to my post.

I also disagree with this statement, my argument linked in well with your question; God may be totally within its power to create another God but what would the repercussions of this action lead to? If God has the power to create something as powerful as its self, what could it possibly want to achieve by doing so? And at the same time, if God is perfect then why would it need to create another God if the original does nothing wrong and keeps everything in perfect balance. God would be doing everything perfectly and not require any assistance. Then surely the new God would be the result of the original God boasting its power which is an imperfection in terms of a personality trait: arrogance

I apologize in advance for any grammar and spelling mistakes you may come across.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Above.The.Empyrean)
If God created another God, he would be God. Because Infinity + Infinity = Infinity;

Unfathomable + Unfathomable = Unfathomable. Both would be analogous due to their salient enormity. Human logic and rhetoric is defied by the tenets of how 'God' functions and his facets. Attempting to vindicate or justify his/her/its non-/existence is similar to trying to state that there's something you know that you don't know.

your mathematics is slightly out there...infinity isn't a number it simply means without a limit, so you would still be exactly the same, look at it in terms of energy

[Diety]

Descartes defined God as 'the most supreme being'.... I don't think it would really work if he were just joint most supreme.Radical monotheists like Muslims would also object to anything being even equal to God, as to be so is to commit shirk, the worst possible sin. But then again, St Anselm said he was 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived', so as long as this other God is only equal to the first God, I suppose that is possible. It depends on how you define 'God'.

[JohnC2211]

(Original post by Stevo112)
Thats what he did with me...

I used my omniscience to work out that your an idiot.

And I used mine to work out that this is ironic.

[Above.The.Empyrean]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
your mathematics is slightly out there...infinity isn't a number it simply means without a limit, so you would still be exactly the same, look at it in terms of energy

I'm not discerning infinity mathematically, I'm apprehending it through rhetoric and literal reasoning. I can comprehend how the limits of infinity work (as in Calculus), but I'm trying to simplify the version, otherwise, you begin to percolate into countable/uncountable infinity and other sets.

[pshewitt1]

(Original post by Above.The.Empyrean)
I'm not discerning infinity mathematically, I'm apprehending it through rhetoric and literal reasoning. I can comprehend how the limits of infinity work (as in Calculus), but I'm trying to simplify the version, otherwise, you begin to percolate into countable/uncountable infinity and other sets.

well played sir, well played :P

[Mazzini]

(Original post by Stevo112)
Thats what he did with me...

I used my omniscience to work out that your an idiot.

Although your omniscience apparently doesn't extend to basic English grammar.

Spoiler:

Show

[Above.The.Empyrean]

(Original post by pshewitt1)
well played sir, well played :P

Nyehehe.

[Stevo112]

(Original post by Mazzini)
Although your omniscience apparently doesn't extend to basic English grammar.

Spoiler:

Show

I have had this out with other people.

The use of "your" was correct.

I was talking about their "an idiot"

[Stevo112]

(Original post by ANIGAV)
proof-read*

**proofread

[Stevo112]

(Original post by JohnC2211)
And I used mine to work out that this is ironic.

I'm glad someone got the irony

[ANIGAV]

(Original post by Stevo112)
**proofread

proofread*

[Asamp]

That's the problem with having an omnipotent being :L He could create another one, he could have killed himself, he could have left, he could have used his power to render himself powerless, he could have literally done anything! He could have used his power to stop himself being omniscient or benevolent; it actually seems pretty unlikely that he would be content to do nothing for billions of years, sort out a few problems in Israel, and then not do that much again for 2000 years!