Hi, I can't help wondering how this fits with about everything I've learned up to now.
How does this fit with what Maimonides says:
"This God is one and not two, etc., and the knowledge of this matter is a positive commandment, as it is said: 'The Lord our God, the Lord is one.'"

To Y.G. — the Rabbi meant that philosophically speaking there is nothing preventing one from saying this. The Rabbi believes there is one God (I assume) because that is what is written in the Torah.

It really doesn't matter what I believe. The question was whether it is impossible that there are two, and my answer was that it is possible. Whether it's true or not is a different question. There are many things that are possible but not true. It's possible that gravity could have been a repulsive force—possible, but not true.
And besides, the fact that Maimonides writes something doesn't mean it's true. True, he cites the verse "Hear, O Israel," and the Holy One, blessed be He, probably is telling the truth (or are telling the truth).

I'm curious to know how two "creators" (gods) could be possible.
My philosophical consideration 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 make possible the existence of two gods, side by side.
5. If there is a reality that makes possible the existence of the two gods, then it precedes both of them (in fact it is 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 numerically one.

A. You're assuming that He is infinite. But perhaps He isn't.
B. This pilpul about the reality that enables their existence, and the assumption that it is itself an entity, seems really quite bizarre to me.
By that logic, even if there is one God, there is a reality that enables His existence—and there you have another God, and so on ad infinitum.
C. That reality itself could also be two. Pairs upon pairs all the way down to infinite regress.

I disagree with you.
A. First, if God is not infinite then He is not God (the first cause)—you've canceled out His absolute transcendence.
B. In the case where there is an infinite God, as the first cause, then He Himself is that reality which has nothing prior to it, and thus no regress is created.
C. That is not so when there is a plurality of gods. For their very existence, attributes, and actions *side by side* assumes that there is some common medium that allows this (for example, preventing one god from nullifying the other or interfering with his actions against his will).
D. I previously suggested identifying God with space in its Newtonian interpretation (more or less). In my opinion, with a simple thought experiment it's easy to see that this fits very well with what I wrote here.

A. Right. Then he's God's 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 going to stop me from relating to these three gods as one entity? By the way, that's another point that touches on the original question.
D. I prefer to identify Him with the chair next to me.

D. If so, you're invited to carry out two thought experiments: one with space and one with the chair. No way to know—maybe in the end we'll discover that the chair is the stronger candidate.