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

[Neo-Scholastic]

Fair enough. I guess I had the impression that this was aimed to answer the big question of why we exist, but if that's not what it's about, then ok.

PS: That was me who asked the question in the quote above, not Neo.

It was aimed to show why the notion of a god creating it is philosophically incoherent.  It violates facts about the nature of the universe that are in evidence, namely the axioms and the primacy of existence.

So it would seem. However that approach risks riefying an abstract principle. Does it not?

At the same, time you are presenting this axiom as a brute fact.. But it is curious to me that you do it in the same way I,writing as a thiest, reason for a Necessary Being, i.e that which must exist for anything to exist at all. How about Being-Itself? Would you not say that Being-Itself must exist logically prior to any particular being, i.e. being-as-such? And if so, would not the concept represented by 'Existence exists' be identical some being, call it God, whose very essense is to exist.

At the same time, we would both agree the principle of non-contadiction is an absolute, but only as an abstract proposition. The PNC has no power in itself. The PNC is mind's perception of an effect of a divine logically prior cause, the power behind the proposition.