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

[Objectivist]

A rational being does not ask other rational beings to have faith.  So either this god does not exist or it is completely irrational.

This is assuming that an omnipotent God would be rational in the same way as people. But since people are far from being omnipotent or omniscient, we really don't know what such a God would do.

The argument seems to be "if I were God I would do this, but since no one is doing this there can't be a God." This seems very anthropocentric to me.

No, the argument is that if an omnipotent god wanted us to know it existed and have a relationship with it then we'd know and have a relationship with it.  There would be no such thing as apologetics.  This debate would not exist.  If God wants a planet to break in two then a planet is going to break in two, but somehow getting us all to believe in it is out of it's depth.  A whole bunch of people believe in something that isn't real, it's imaginary, and they want others to believe it with them but they can't, for over 2000 years, present a valid and sound argument to this day.  That's all they need but they don't have it.  This god, if it were real, could just make itself known.  

There are no other kinds of rationality, you either think in accordance with facts and logic or you don't.  You are right, I don't think an omniscient being would have any need for reason guided by logic because it would not need a method of thinking to weed out errors, it would be incapable of errors.  If you want to know what led me away from Christianity, it was the fact that this god supposedly created us with this wonderful, capable brain and then expected us to believe in it based on faith which is nothing more than wishful thinking.  That was the contradiction that led me to start questioning my preacher who had no answer for me but to pat me on the head and tell me to go have some cookies and not think so much.

[tjdisc]

An omnipotent god would be able to make everyone mentally aware of his existence. He would also know what evidence everyone would personally require to realize that he existed and he would provide said evidence.

One wonders why he does not do this.  I would not even ask for money; some flowers would be sufficient, and, of course, God would know what types of flowers would be sufficient to convince me, even if I did not "know".

I complain to Him along these lines.  I DO wish this world was now like it will be when Christ comes to rule.  Perfect.  Love.  Truth.  Kindness.  Every fruit of the Spirit made manifest.  Why do we have to wait?  Judas Iscariot was impatient like that.  He wanted Jesus to rule now and overthrow the evil rulers (Roman etc.) now.  Even John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus what was going on - what's taking so long?  They didn't understand God's plan, how He must suffer and die first.  And those who choose to follow Him must follow in His footsteps.

So you and I are in good company in our wonderings/complaints.  He's big enough to hear us and yet bear our weaknesses and carry us through these trials in this world - which is sort of the purpose/meaning I suppose.

[Jehanne]

One wonders why he does not do this.  I would not even ask for money; some flowers would be sufficient, and, of course, God would know what types of flowers would be sufficient to convince me, even if I did not "know".

I complain to Him along these lines.  I DO wish this world was now like it will be when Christ comes to rule.  Perfect.  Love.  Truth.  Kindness.  Every fruit of the Spirit made manifest.  Why do we have to wait?  Judas Iscariot was impatient like that.  He wanted Jesus to rule now and overthrow the evil rulers (Roman etc.) now.  Even John the Baptist sent his disciples to ask Jesus what was going on - what's taking so long?  They didn't understand God's plan, how He must suffer and die first.  And those who choose to follow Him must follow in His footsteps.

So you and I are in good company in our wonderings/complaints.  He's big enough to hear us and yet bear our weaknesses and carry us through these trials in this world - which is sort of the purpose/meaning I suppose.

This reads like a daily devotional. A much better explanation for Jesus not appearing on a white horse among the clouds, trumpet in hand, is that not only is Jesus dead, but that his body is in a state of advanced decomposition.

[Neo-Scholastic]

This is assuming that an omnipotent God would be rational in the same way as people. But since people are far from being omnipotent or omniscient, we really don't know what such a God would do.

The argument seems to be "if I were God I would do this, but since no one is doing this there can't be a God." This seems very anthropocentric to me.

No, the argument is that if an omnipotent god wanted us to know it existed and have a relationship with it then we'd know and have a relationship with it.  There would be no such thing as apologetics.  This debate would not exist.  If God wants a planet to break in two then a planet is going to break in two, but somehow getting us all to believe in it is out of it's depth.  A whole bunch of people believe in something that isn't real, it's imaginary, and they want others to believe it with them but they can't, for over 2000 years, present a valid and sound argument to this day.  That's all they need but they don't have it.  This god, if it were real, could just make itself known.  

There are no other kinds of rationality, you either think in accordance with facts and logic or you don't.  You are right, I don't think an omniscient being would have any need for reason guided by logic because it would not need a method of thinking to weed out errors, it would be incapable of errors.  If you want to know what led me away from Christianity, it was the fact that this god supposedly created us with this wonderful, capable brain and then expected us to believe in it based on faith which is nothing more than wishful thinking.  That was the contradiction that led me to start questioning my preacher who had no answer for me but to pat me on the head and tell me to go have some cookies and not think so much.

Most people who profess to be Objectivist are keen to notice logical fallacies. Therefore I find it surprising that your whole post to Bel is basically an argument from incredulity.

[tjdisc]

I think the whole "belief" thing is overstated.  I don't think it's so much if we believe He exists (demons do and that doesn't do so much for them).  It's whether you want to be like Him or not.  Loving, kind, merciful, long-suffering etc.  All the fruits of the Spirit.  We can't be truly - that's why He died.  To provide a way to pull us out of the depraved karmic debt/hole we can find ourselves in.  To give us a path to be like Him that we weren't capable of before.  I'm not going to say you can't be perfect.  Jesus said He came for the sick, not the healthy.  If you can return love for hate and exemplify all the fruits of the Spirit, then you HAVE chosen Him in spirit and in truth, whether you believe He exists or not.

[Jehanne]

I think the whole "belief" thing is overstated.  I don't think it's so much if we believe He exists (demons do and that doesn't do so much for them).  It's whether you want to be like Him or not.  Loving, kind, merciful, long-suffering etc.  All the fruits of the Spirit.  We can't be truly - that's why He died.  To provide a way to pull us out of the depraved karmic debt/hole we can find ourselves in.  To give us a path to be like Him that we weren't capable of before.  I'm not going to say you can't be perfect.  Jesus said He came for the sick, not the healthy.  If you can return love for hate and exemplify all the fruits of the Spirit, then you HAVE chosen Him in spirit and in truth, whether you believe He exists or not.

Just curious, do you believe that the Bible contains any errors in its original manuscripts, say, historical errors? As one example, do you believe the Book of Isiah to have been written by a single author?

[tjdisc]

I think the whole "belief" thing is overstated.  I don't think it's so much if we believe He exists (demons do and that doesn't do so much for them).  It's whether you want to be like Him or not.  Loving, kind, merciful, long-suffering etc.  All the fruits of the Spirit.  We can't be truly - that's why He died.  To provide a way to pull us out of the depraved karmic debt/hole we can find ourselves in.  To give us a path to be like Him that we weren't capable of before.  I'm not going to say you can't be perfect.  Jesus said He came for the sick, not the healthy.  If you can return love for hate and exemplify all the fruits of the Spirit, then you HAVE chosen Him in spirit and in truth, whether you believe He exists or not.

Just curious, do you believe that the Bible contains any errors in its original manuscripts, say, historical errors?  As one example, do you believe the Book of Isiah to have been written by a single author?

The bible is a tool - an aid.  Jesus' words in the gospels showed me the way to have relationship with Him - so I hold His words above all other scripture.  Whether there are debatable aspects of "historical" or "inerrancy" in certain books, I don't presume to be expert.  It doesn't impact knowing Him for me.

[Jehanne]

Just curious, do you believe that the Bible contains any errors in its original manuscripts, say, historical errors?  As one example, do you believe the Book of Isiah to have been written by a single author?

The bible is a tool - an aid.  Jesus' words in the gospels showed me the way to have relationship with Him - so I hold His words above all other scripture.  Whether there are debatable aspects of "historical" or "inerrancy" in certain books, I don't presume to be expert.  It doesn't impact knowing Him for me.

How do you know that the Gospels, which were written a generation after Jesus' execution, contain his words?

[tjdisc]

The bible is a tool - an aid.  Jesus' words in the gospels showed me the way to have relationship with Him - so I hold His words above all other scripture.  Whether there are debatable aspects of "historical" or "inerrancy" in certain books, I don't presume to be expert.  It doesn't impact knowing Him for me.

How do you know that the Gospels, which were written a generation after Jesus' execution, contain his words?

I mean it when I say they struck me as true.  I believe the disciples heard His words and they were unlike any that they had ever heard.  They stated that He didn't preach as the teachers of the Law, He taught as one who had authority.  His words were revolutionary enough to me that I am sure they were to them also, and they were unforgettable and therefore recorded accurately.  

If it was all some falsehood, I wouldn't be able to be receiving (daily spiritual bread) from Him, there would not be any relationship there.  So it would just sort of end at His words - and I would have no experience/relationship ongoing.

[Jehanne]

How do you know that the Gospels, which were written a generation after Jesus' execution, contain his words?

I mean it when I say they struck me as true.  I believe the disciples heard His words and they were unlike any that they had ever heard.  They stated that He didn't preach as the teachers of the Law, He taught as one who had authority.  His words were revolutionary enough to me that I am sure they were to them also, and they were unforgettable and therefore recorded accurately.  

If it was all some falsehood, I wouldn't be able to be receiving (daily spiritual bread) from Him, there would not be any relationship there.  So it would just sort of end at His words - and I would have no experience/relationship ongoing.

The Gospels were not written by any eyewitnesses to Jesus' life, certainly, not by his disciples, none of whom could write.