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

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm saying an omnipotent being gets what it wants. There would be nothing denied to it.

Indeed. So we have a bit of a dilemma…depending on what we think God wants. There is of-course, a bit of debate about divine impassibility. If that doctrine is true, then such a seemingly cold and distant God-of-the-Philosophers doesn’t “want” anything. Only by special revelation, by means of the Passion Jesus of Nazareth, does the Christian glimpse the concept of Grace. And yes, this constitutes one of the mysteries of faith, i.e. one of those intractable questions I was talking about earlier…where pondering it is more valuable than resolving it.

I think that reason and faith are entirely incompatible with each other and faith destroys the ability to reason since things taken on faith cannot be integrated with our other knowledge.

IMO some existential questions must be answered without recourse to either facts or logic. For example, I choose to believe that the world is intelligible and that human reason is effective. That’s what I choose to believe (more about that below).

As far as anything being the ground of being, I think this is nonsensical. Existence exists. It doesn't need grounding. Our knowledge of it certainly does but being itself does not and metaphysically it can't have a grounding. The fact that existence exists is absolute and the idea of there being a ground to being rests on stollen concepts. So I reject it completely.

As I recall, “Existence exists,” was considered axiomatic by Rand but I find vague and useless as premise. What exactly categories of being does Rand include in existence? Physical bodies? Sets and numbers? And Rand dashes off to fight communism before dealing with the complex questions such as if there is a distinction between Being-As-Such and Being-In-Itself, etc. Does this particular physical reality exhaust the fullness of what is, as just an incurious brute fact, or is it a manifestation of one possibility out all possible worlds within a larger reality that includes necessary and true transcendent principles and powers across all possible worlds. My vote is for the larger reality. YMMV.

We can have certainty. There are certain fundamental facts that we can all know and we can't be wrong about them. These are facts that are self-evident, fundamental, conceptually irreducible, and inescapable. They ground our knowledge in reality. We can use them as a standard by which to judge all knowledge claims. They represent an objective starting point for knowledge.

<emphasis mine>

Are you sure about that? 😊 I would say if there is to be knowledge there are at least two conditions about the world that must be true: 1) First, the world must be intelligible and human reason must be efficacious. IMHO, these are articles of faith. Locally the world could seem intelligible while still being fundamentally absurd*. Can we ever be certain that what seems obvious and axiomatic is not an artifact of our biology? No, but what choice does one have?

*Sure seems absurd to me.