Why God didn't create Gods?

[bahman]

1) We know that God is perfect
2) This means that Its act, creation for example, must be perfect
3) This means that God must create Gods only

What do you think? Is that logically impossible for God to create God? If not why God did otherwise?

[Immanuel Can]

Self-contradiction: "God" cannot create "gods," if the words actually refer to the same entity.

"God," in Western thought, means "Supreme Being." By definition, there can only ever be one "Supreme Being" in the universe.

So "gods," if such a thing were posited, must be a synonym for a kind of minor power or "super-powered alien," at most; but cannot mean "Supreme Being." Your syllogism would then self-contradict.

[bahman]

Self-contradiction: "God" cannot create "gods," if the words actually refer to the same entity.

Why my argument is self-contradictory? Why God cannot create another God?

"God," in Western thought, means "Supreme Being." By definition, there can only ever be one "Supreme Being" in the universe.

We are not talking about definition. You need to provide an argument to show that the opposite is logically impossible.

So "gods," if such a thing were posited, must be a synonym for a kind of minor power or "super-powered alien," at most; but cannot mean "Supreme Being." Your syllogism would then self-contradict.

I don't think so. Moreover, you need to notice that God is perfect and cannot perform an imperfect act such as creating a minor power.

[Immanuel Can]

Why my argument is self-contradictory? Why God cannot create another God?

The Supreme Being cannot create another "being" that is "supreme." If He did, then He would no longer, by definition, be the "supreme" Being Himself. He would be only a co-regent with an equal "being," and thus not "supreme."

But if the "being" He creates is less than "supreme," then it is not a "supreme being," and thus is not (by Western definition) "God" at all.

So either way, God cannot create another God. It's a contradiction in terms, an absurdity in logic, and an impossibility in practice -- and you can't get more self-contradictory than that.

Moreover, you need to notice that God is perfect and cannot perform an imperfect act such as creating a minor power.

Not so. A "minor power" isn't by definition "imperfect." It's just "lesser." But on its own lesser terms, it may be as "perfect" as it needs to be. We could have a universe in which a "perfect tree" existed. The existence of a "perfect" tree would not mean that God had created imperfection: it would mean the opposite, in fact: the tree was as perfect for a tree as it needed to be.

Lesser does not mean imperfect. But there's only one "supreme," by definition: because that's the nature of that superlative.

[Noax]

1) We know that God is perfect

Other than by definition, how might one possibly know this?

We are not talking about definition.

What was the above then?

[bahman]

The Supreme Being cannot create another "being" that is "supreme."

So you want to say that God is not omnipotent. Or maybe arguing that the act of creation of other God is logically impossible. You need to provide an argument to justify that.

If He did, then He would no longer, by definition, be the "supreme" Being Himself. He would be only a co-regent with an equal "being," and thus not "supreme."

We can accept the following definition for God: God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Simply a being who is not supreme being. Of course God is not supreme after creating other Gods.

But if the "being" He creates is less than "supreme," then it is not a "supreme being," and thus is not (by Western definition) "God" at all.

Of course God can be God just by changing the definition of God as it was stated before. The problem is deeper than defining God as a supreme.

So either way, God cannot create another God. It's a contradiction in terms, an absurdity in logic, and an impossibility in practice -- and you can't get more self-contradictory than that.

That is not correct.

Not so. A "minor power" isn't by definition "imperfect." It's just "lesser."

That is not correct also. A lesser being cannot be perfect since It cannot perform perfect act because It is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

But on its own lesser terms, it may be as "perfect" as it needs to be. We could have a universe in which a "perfect tree" existed. The existence of a "perfect" tree would not mean that God had created imperfection: it would mean the opposite, in fact: the tree was as perfect for a tree as it needed to be.

This doesn't follow as it is stated in previous comment. Moreover, we know that God created us who are not perfect which means that God's action was not perfect hence God is not perfect.

[bahman]

1) We know that God is perfect

Other than by definition, how might one possibly know this?

That is correct. "God by definition is perfect" is a better statement.

We are not talking about definition.

What was the above then?

I meant that this has nothing to do with accepting God as supreme being since one can define God as a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

[Reflex]

"Many of the theologic difficulties and the metaphysical dilemmas of mortal man are due to man’s mislocation of Deity personality and consequent assignment of infinite and absolute attributes to subordinate Divinity and to evolutionary Deity. You must not forget that, while there is indeed a true First Cause, there are also a host of co-ordinate and subordinate causes, both associate and secondary causes.

"The vital distinction between first causes and second causes is that first causes produce original effects which are free from inheritance of any factor derived from any antecedent causation. Secondary causes yield effects which invariably exhibit inheritance from other and preceding causation." (UB, 118:4.1-2)

[bahman]

"Many of the theologic difficulties and the metaphysical dilemmas of mortal man are due to man’s mislocation of Deity personality and consequent assignment of infinite and absolute attributes to subordinate Divinity and to evolutionary Deity. You must not forget that, while there is indeed a true First Cause, there are also a host of co-ordinate and subordinate causes, both associate and secondary causes.

"The vital distinction between first causes and second causes is that first causes produce original effects which are free from inheritance of any factor derived from any antecedent causation. Secondary causes yield effects which invariably exhibit inheritance from other and preceding causation." (UB, 118:4.1-2)

I have no idea how what you said is related to the topic.

[OuterLimits]

1) We know that God is perfect
2) This means that Its act, creation for example, must be perfect
3) This means that God must create Gods only

What do you think? Is that logically impossible for God to create God? If not why God did otherwise?

What does "perfect" mean here?

If God creates something, what substance does God create it out of? Itself or something else?

Does God create the idea in God's own mind that it would be worthwhile to create something or does that idea come from elsewhere?

[Necromancer]

1) We know that God is perfect
2) This means that Its act, creation for example, must be perfect
3) This means that God must create Gods only

What do you think? Is that logically impossible for God to create God? If not why God did otherwise?

Good thinking, bahman!

While we act as (small) gods where our godhood is threatened by giving way to corruption, the corrupt mind, so as to sell our godhood for money or something thereof. Nobody knows what God entails so we may as well be (small) gods ourselves, I agree.

To take this further, added the bliss/ecstacy/rapture of dying and entering Heaven, we may experience something like God's perfect drama so to say that we need to grow as people/souls before being a part of God/the highest principles of World-whatever, multiverse or other.

However, this may seem rather tough to live through this life as God's perfect drama but it's the best idea I have for it, evil being the obstacle to proper enlightenment to godhood, being a part of God even on Earth.

Good?

[Immanuel Can]

So you want to say that God is not omnipotent. Or maybe arguing that the act of creation of other God is logically impossible. You need to provide an argument to justify that.

"Omnipotent" has to be carefully defined. Does is mean, for example, that God can do rationally-self-contradictory things, or that He can sin? I would say no. I would say that was a very naive and unnuanced definition of what it means to be "able" to do things. For surely the ability to do is enhanced, not diminished, by the ability to act consistently with one's own character and nature, rather than to be swayed by outside things or to participate in rational absurdities.

We can accept the following definition for God: God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Simply a being who is not supreme being. Of course God is not supreme after creating other Gods.

That triad of labels is a best human attempt to speak of the character of the Supreme Being. But these words do not appear in Torah or in the New Testament anywhere, so we would have to be precise about what is intended when we try to apply them. We might be glossing over a great deal.

So either way, God cannot create another God. It's a contradiction in terms, an absurdity in logic, and an impossibility in practice -- and you can't get more self-contradictory than that.

That is not correct.

Show why. Given the implication of "supreme," how can there be two "supreme" beings at the same time?

A lesser being cannot be perfect since It cannot perform perfect act because It is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent.

You'd better explain what you mean by "perfect act." What is the "perfect" there? Please give me the exact definition you wish to advocate.

[Terrapin Station]

bahman, what are your religious views, exactly? Just curious, since it seems that every thread you start has some connection to philosophy of religion. (Even your phil of mind threads I always suspect are motivated by their relation to phil of religion.)

[bahman]

1) We know that God is perfect
2) This means that Its act, creation for example, must be perfect
3) This means that God must create Gods only

What do you think? Is that logically impossible for God to create God? If not why God did otherwise?

Good thinking, bahman!

While we act as (small) gods where our godhood is threatened by giving way to corruption, the corrupt mind, so as to sell our godhood for money or something thereof. Nobody knows what God entails so we may as well be (small) gods ourselves, I agree.

To take this further, added the bliss/ecstacy/rapture of dying and entering Heaven, we may experience something like God's perfect drama so to say that we need to grow as people/souls before being a part of God/the highest principles of World-whatever, multiverse or other.

However, this may seem rather tough to live through this life as God's perfect drama but it's the best idea I have for it, evil being the obstacle to proper enlightenment to godhood, being a part of God even on Earth.

Good?

Good writing. While I agree with most of your view I have doubt why God didn't create us Gods even if at the end of our final journey we become Gods? That is true since we get through the state of suffering in this life. So why be in state of suffering to become God instead of being created as God in first place?

[bahman]

What does "perfect" mean here?

Perfect means as good as it is possible to be.

If God creates something, what substance does God create it out of? Itself or something else?

In religious context, it is believed that we are created of matter and soul which both are created by God.

Does God create the idea in God's own mind that it would be worthwhile to create something or does that idea come from elsewhere?

All ideas are in mind of God.