Poll: Do you think God create another omnipotent being?

[DMITRIYL]

I know this is a slightly dumb question. I have my own thoughts but I just want to hear your opinions. Please explain your response.

 

[Hodegetria]

Well, it won’t let me vote, I imagine because I’m new… I’ve been lurking for awhile, though, so I hope I can reply- And I don’t think it’s a dumb question. The nuns used to torture us with the “If God can do anything, can He make a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it?” question, lol. Moving on…

My response would be NO, because omnipotent means almighty, all powerful in the highest degree possible. There can only be ONE highest degree of power. So, there can only be ONE OMNIPOTENT BEING. God is already that Being. If he could make a being more powerful than Himself, He wouldn’t be God in the first place.

Looking forward to your answer and the reasoning, esp if your answer is YES.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

I’ve heard that St. Thomas Aquinas (or at least I think it’s him) showed that there cannot be two simultaneous, infinite, omnipotent beings. Someone here might know what it is I’m referring to.

But since you’re asking us … I’ll put in something.

Suppose God created another omnipotent being called god’. Now if God and god’ have the same way of going about things, then god’ is not necessary so why would God make such a being when he already “contains” god’? On the other hand, what if they go about things in a different way? What if they have disagreements and both are equally omnipotent? Would God have known this before creating god’? If He knows, then why would He create such a being? If He didn’t, then that puts into question God’s omnipotence so it seems it would be contradictory.

Also, if god’ is omnipotent, then why did he need to be created?

I am not a theologian or philosopher though, so warning there …

 

[thinkandmull]

Maybe a better question is whether God the Father can proceed a Fourth Person of the Trinity, or whether God the Father and the Holy Ghost will become incarnate at the end of the world. I suppose both are possible. Nothing is impossible with God. Anyway, this is all just speculation. No dogmas on this stuff

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I know this is a slightly dumb question. I have my own thoughts but I just want to hear your opinions. Please explain your response.

No because whatever is created by God would have a beginning. And because it had to be created it could not be Omnipotent. It laked the power of creating itself.

Linus2nd

 

[Angela77]

That’s a super interesting question actually.

At first I was like NO.

Then I was like YES, God can do anything.

And my final answer was NO. When you try to think of what another omnipotent being would be, things get dicey. Omnipotent means all-powerful, and if God is all-powerful, then the being he creates could not also be all-powerful because he depended on another for his creation. I guess I’m kind of equating non contingency with power, if that’s even a legit move.

 

[Hicks]

No, by definition that second being would be a creature (created by God). This creature would be contingent, rather than necessary, being (because the fact of its having been created indicates that there was a time when it did not exist, and is thus not necessary) One of the primary characteristics of God is that He is not caused or created, and that He is the one necessary being.

Now, God is perfect, He cannot be more or less of Himself. But in order to create another God, God would have to create a God who was less perfect than Himself (contingent rather than necessary). This is a logical contradiction, as an equal by definition cannot be less than. Contrary to popular belief, there are some things God cannot do. For example, He cannot be absurd. He cannot be both a thing and its opposite. He cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, He cannot create another God, because this would be absurd.

Basically, Angela above me got it right.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well the question is whether God can create a diety who AFTER the creation was necessary and His existence equaling his essense.

Also, did God the Father will by necessity the Son?

 

[alchemist3]

No, by definition that second being would be a creature (created by God). This creature would be contingent, rather than necessary, being (because the fact of its having been created indicates that there was a time when it did not exist, and is thus not necessary) One of the primary characteristics of God is that He is not caused or created, and that He is the one necessary being.

Now, God is perfect, He cannot be more or less of Himself. But in order to create another God, God would have to create a God who was less perfect than Himself (contingent rather than necessary). This is a logical contradiction, as an equal by definition cannot be less than. Contrary to popular belief, there are some things God cannot do. For example, He cannot be absurd. He cannot be both a thing and its opposite. He cannot contradict Himself. Therefore, He cannot create another God, because this would be absurd.

Basically, Angela above me got it right.

I actually believe God can contradict itself and human ideas of logical reasoning fail to apply to God. Remember god’s thoughts are not our thoughts, his ways are not our ways. Logic works for the human world and the material universe, but I suspect God transcends all notions of human logic. Many modern ideas of physics completely violate logical “laws” and we can not even get a handhold on what occurs in black holes so I think we are applying really outdated thinking in regards to what God actually is. The universe is much more strange than any medieval theologian could ever imagine so applying the logic of Thomas Aquinas to 21st century physics in a little dated. Again for day to day living, the work just fine, for the most complex ideas in the universe they start to breakdown.

 

[Hicks]

I actually believe God can contradict itself and human ideas of logical reasoning fail to apply to God. Remember god’s thoughts are not our thoughts, his ways are not our ways. Logic works for the human world and the material universe, but I suspect God transcends all notions of human logic. Many modern ideas of physics completely violate logical “laws” and we can not even get a handhold on what occurs in black holes so I think we are applying really outdated thinking in regards to what God actually is. The universe is much more strange than any medieval theologian could ever imagine so applying the logic of Thomas Aquinas to 21st century physics in a little dated. Again for day to day living, the work just fine, for the most complex ideas in the universe they start to breakdown.

Perhaps you could give some examples. What are some ways that God could contradict Himself? What are some ways that 21st Century physics have transcended Thomistic logic? This isn’t an unusual track you’re taking, the problem that I see is that it says so much and means so little, leaving both the speaker and the listener bewildered as to what (if anything) has been said. It introduces a fog of doubt to a debate, and little else.

Remember that God created our minds, as He created everything else. He created us for total communion with Him, and this includes our minds. God even became man, from which we can deduce that relationship with God is eminently possible, and in fact God’s desire. While you are correct that we will never comprehend the mind of God, it is only logical that our minds would be created to draw conclusion about His essence that are based in logic. The alternative is that God is so unknowable and alien that we are simply incapable of saying anything at all about Him, even that he “exists” in the first place. It’s possible that this could be the basis for some religion, but it just isn’t the Catholic one. We believe that God is knowable. He has spoken, Jesus Christ is His Word.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

This is like the “rock which God cannot lift” conundrum. The question itself contains a contradiction in terms, therefore it cannot be answered, any more than “Fjw hxiwjx fgwz?”.

God cannot create a man who is a jar of peanut butter, not due to any limitation of divine power, but because a man and a jar of peanut butter are two different things. The proposition makes no sense.

As others have noted, “two omnipotent beings” is likewise a contradiction in terms. It is not that it is too hard for God, but that it is not a real scenario, even theoretically. And you can’t sneak in self-sufficiency after the fact; if a being was created, it is not self-sufficient.

 

[thinkandmull]

This is like the “rock which God cannot lift” conundrum. The question itself contains a contradiction in terms, therefore it cannot be answered, any more than “Fjw hxiwjx fgwz?”.

God cannot create a man who is a jar of peanut butter, not due to any limitation of divine power, but because a man and a jar of peanut butter are two different things. The proposition makes no sense.

As others have noted, “two omnipotent beings” is likewise a contradiction in terms. It is not that it is too hard for God, but that it is not a real scenario, even theoretically. And you can’t sneak in self-sufficiency after the fact; if a being was created, it is not self-sufficient.

Well does the Father do that with the Son?

 

[Hicks]

No, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all God. God is one being. However, we know through God’s self-revelation that His Being is composed of three natures. Jesus is not a being that was created by God. He is God, and is equal to God. He is begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, you might say. Trinitarian theology and the difference between being and nature are not the easiest things in the world to understand. I can hardly claim to be an expert myself.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

I know this is a slightly dumb question. I have my own thoughts but I just want to hear your opinions. Please explain your response.

In one sense, God has done that with the Trinity. I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that God just happened to have a Trinitarian aspect at all times. I think there was an intent on the part of God the Father when He “created” the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Especially when Christ often referred to Himself as the “Son of Man” as well. It’s as though God created a “Son” as He foresaw the need to insert Himself into human history in this form.

The Trinity is totally mysterious. But I do think there was some sort of action by God the Father to bring it about, and that it was not intrinsic to His being in what might be called the very “beginning”.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

His Being is composed of three natures.

Not to be nitpicky, but your choice of words here is problematic from a theological standpoint. “composed of” sounds like God has parts, which he doesn’t; he is simple. And not three natures; God has one divine nature with two processions, or if you will three persons in God. For the definition of a divine person, see St. Thomas, S.T. I, Q. 29.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

In one sense, God has done that with the Trinity. I find it a bit of a stretch to believe that God just happened to have a Trinitarian aspect at all times. I think there was an intent on the part of God the Father when He “created” the Son and the Holy Spirit. . . .

The persons of the Trinity are indeed intrinsic to God, and co-eternal. There is a “procession” or “eternal generation,” but not in time. There was never a moment when one Person did not exist. The *Incarnation *of the Second Person happened in time, and for a reason, yes; to redeem fallen man and to unite divinity and humanity. But although the human nature of Christ was created, the Second Person who assumed the that nature is eternal.

See the Athanasian Creed.

 

[thinkandmull]

Well didn’t God the Father eternally necessarily create a "rock (Jesus the Rock of the New Testament) that he can’t “pick up” (destroy)? By this same principle, why can he not create a material rock he can’t pick up. I’ve always thought it was possible

 

[Hicks]

Not to be nitpicky, but your choice of words here is problematic from a theological standpoint. “composed of” sounds like God has parts, which he doesn’t; he is simple. And not three natures; God has one divine nature with two processions, or if you will three persons in God. For the definition of a divine person, see St. Thomas, S.T. I, Q. 29.

No, I appreciate the nitpick. The terminology is hard for me to nail down when it comes to this subject.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

Well didn’t God the Father eternally necessarily create a "rock (Jesus the Rock of the New Testament) that he can’t “pick up” (destroy)? By this same principle, why can he not create a material rock he can’t pick up. I’ve always thought it was possible

Jesus was not created, He has always existed. What do you mean by “eternally necessarily create”?