[Serious] Could an omnipotent and omniscient god prove that he was God?

[Objectivist]

I know, it's one of the most difficult things I've ever learned.  Read my response to GrandizerII and see if that doesn't clear things up a bit.  It's hard for me to explain something that took me years to understand which means I have more work to do.

That's why I come to places like this forum.  In trying to explain this it helps me to clarify my own thinking.

Here's a link to a more in depth discussion of this topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqx0mingAF8

If I'm honest, your last two responses to me didn't really clarify the bit about how my existence is necessary as opposed to contingent. I understand that you don't like the wording of "necessary vs. contingent", but I did ask a question about my limited existence in a way which doesn't require employing either the word "necessary" or "contingent". So let me rephrase it better so it doesn't use those words at all:

I exist now, but is it possible I could never have existed at all instead?

I did stumble upon this link while googling:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/necessity.html

As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no “facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise” as against “facts which must be.” There are only: facts which are. . . . Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are “necessary.” In this sense, to be is to be “necessary.” The concept of “necessity,” in a metaphysical context, is superfluous.

So it seems the answer to my question is "no", which means objectivism holds to the notion of modal necessitarianism, which I find to be quite unsatisfactory, to say the least. If this is the way this world could only be, then why this? Under modal necessitarianism, this is not a question to be asked, which is an attitude I disagree with.

I also have a problem with what appears to be strict empiricism. Sometimes, "imagination" is what gets us in the right direction of discovering facts, and if we didn't rely on that, we would've taken longer to discover those facts, if at all.

Thanks for the links you provided. Have checked the first one already, and will check the youtube one next soon.

your existence is necessary because your existence is a fact.  To understand this you have to recognize a distinction between what is called the metaphysically given and the manmade.  The metaphysically given is all that comes about without human choice as an input.  The metaphysically given could not be different and it could not have failed to occur.  The metaphysically given can not be judged true or false, it just is and could not be different.  It's the result of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their nature.  All actions are actions of entities, there are no floating actions and the nature of the action an entity takes is determined by that thing's identity.  Contradictions can't exist because that would mean some entity acting outside of or contrary to its nature.  If entities could act contrary to their nature, we'd have chaos and no knowledge would be possible.  

When it comes to human actions, they could have been different.  By our nature which is metaphysically given, we have a volitional form of consciousness.  We can depart from reality within the contents of our minds either by making a mistake in thinking or by deliberate evasion.  That's why all products of the mind must be judged true or false,
right or wrong, and the metaphysically given is the standard by which we must judge because it's impossible for the metaphysically given to be 'wrong'.  Once again we see the axiom of existence/ identity acting as the base of knowledge.  

So it's true that you didn't have to exist, your parents could have chosen not to have children, but once they did choose and you were born your existence is no longer potential but a full fact.  If you didn't exist we'd have a contradiction that can not exist.  Facts are absolutes once they are facts.  That's what I mean about your existence is necessary.  That's why it's so silly to talk about the odds of life developing.  Life as such is metaphysically given, it could not have failed to happen so the odds were 100% that life would happen on Earth.  There is no such thing as random chance, there is only our ability or lack to predict things.  

It is true that imagination plays a role in cognition.  Imagination is a rearrangement of things we've perceived into new combinations in our minds.  Imaginary things aren't real and don't exist.  But our imagination can be used to try out new things in our minds preparatory to trying to bring them into reality.  I remember when I was learning to do the specialized area of woodworking I do.  I had to invent a lot of tools and techniques because they didn't exist yet.  So I would spend hours thinking, imagining what if I take this material and attach it to this other material and shaped like this it might work for what I'm trying to do.  But then I had to actually make the tool before I could see if it worked and how well.  So imagination by itself is not a means of knowledge.  A mental grasp of reality, of what's real, what exists is knowledge and it starts with perception which by the way is metaphysically given.  It has to start with perception because that is the material that the mind rearranges into new combinations that don't exist in reality, yet.  The senses, like everything else that exists, act in certain ways and only in those ways, according to their nature.  So perceptions can not be wrong or right.  Their output is what we use to judge the output of our other type of consciousness, our reasoning faculty which can be wrong. That is why it is impossible for the senses to be 'invalid' as so many people believe.  Aristotle discovered this 2.300 years ago.  It's the discovery that led him to discover logic. 

By the way, existence as such is metaphysically given. It certainly wasn't a product of human choice. So it doesn't happen to be but could have been different. It is. Once it is, it's a fact and is necessary.