2 Creators

Hey, I can't help but wonder how this fits in with pretty much everything I've learned so far.
How does this fit in with the words of Maimonides:
“God is one, and not two, etc.

L – Y.G. The Rabbi meant that from a philosophical point of view there is no obstacle to saying so, the Rabbi believes that there is one God (I assume) because it is written so in the Torah

It doesn't matter what I believe. The question was whether it's not possible for there to be two, and my answer was that it is possible. Whether it's true or not is a different question. There are many things that could be, but they're not true. It's possible that the force of attraction was a force of repulsion, it's possible, but it's not true.
And by the way, just because the Rambam writes something doesn't mean it's true. He does quote a verse, "Shema Yisrael," and God, the Almighty, is probably telling (or saying) the truth.

I am curious to know how there could be two “Creators” (Gods).
My philosophical reasoning against this possibility goes like this:
1. God is infinite
2. Therefore He exists beyond our finite world – He is transcendent to the world
3. If there are two Gods, both are transcendent to the world
4. If both are transcendent to the world, then there is a reality or at least conditions that allow the existence of two Gods, side by side.
5. If there is a reality that allows the existence of two Gods, then it precedes both of them (in fact, transcendent to them).
6. This is an infinite reality in the full sense and therefore only it can be “God”
7. This reality can only be one in number.

A. You assume it is infinite. But it may not be.
B. The chatter about the reality that allows their existence and the assumption that it is itself an entity seems really strange to me.
According to this logic, even if there is one God, there is a reality that allows his existence, and you have another God, and so on.
C. This reality itself can also be two. Pairs of pairs all the way to infinite regression.

I disagree with you.
A. First, if God is not infinite, He is not God (the first cause) – you have eliminated His absolute transcendence.
B. In the event that there is an infinite God, as a first cause, then He Himself is the same reality that has no precedent, and thus no regression is created.
C. This is not the case if there are multiple gods. After all, their very existence, their attributes, and their actions *next to each other* presuppose that there is a common medium that allows this (for example, preventing one god from canceling his friend or interfering in his actions against his will).
D. I have previously proposed here to identify God with space in its Newtonian interpretation (plus minus). In my opinion, in a simple thought experiment it is easy to see that this fits perfectly with what I wrote here.

A. True. It's his cousin who is also called God.
B. Even when there are two you can say the same thing.
C. The very definition of two Gods is vague. Who is to prevent me from treating these three Gods as one entity? Incidentally, this is another point that touches on the original question.
D. I prefer to identify him with the chair next to me.

D. If so, you are invited to conduct two thought experiments: one with the space and one with the chair. Who knows, maybe in the end we will find that the chair is a better candidate.