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

[Objectivist]

Neo-Scholastic,

Thank you very much for your detailed response. I wish I had time to respond to each and every point you made but I'll have to confine my response to just one. If You want me to answer the others I will be glad to but it will have to be one at a time as my time is very limited. I'm supposed to be editing photos right now. But I do love discussing ideas. I also apologize for the form in which I'm responding. I still can't figure out how the system works here. Yes, I'm very dumb about computer stuff and my computer whiz daughter is living in another city now. I can't ask her to help me.

I had written: You say that the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction are absolutes and they are even though they are abstract principles because the facts on which these two abstractions are based are absolutes. Every fact is absolute and necessary. To exist is to be necessary

You have written back: "Whoa there…just to be clear I see a very important distinction between abstractions, which are passive descriptions of reality, and the active causes so abstractly represented and/or modeled."

I picked this point to address because I think it gets to the heart of the disagreement between us. On my view, abstractions are not passive nor are they descriptions. They are integrations of a huge number of similar concretes, called units, by a process of abstraction that is not passive but active and also volitional. You have to choose to do it, it doesn't happen automatically. They are not descriptions either. Description implies a one to one relationship but concepts are infinity to one. You could describe me or yourself but how would you go about describing all men and women including those who lived 10,000 years ago and those who have yet to be born? It would be impossible unless you find those things that make man what he is and also distinguish him from all other things that exist. That is what a concept does or more properly that is how a concept is formed. It turns out the only thing a group of similar things don't have in common is their specific measurements. So abstraction is a process of despecifying specific measurements. For example, Men vary in height, weight, eye color, hair color, their intelligence, etc., but they all fit within the concept 'man'. If you tell me a man came to see you, I know instantly what you mean by man even though we've likely never seen the same people. That's because the concept 'man' isolates those essential characteristics that make man what he is and omits their measurements. For example, a man must be some height but he can be any height. So not passive and not descriptions but open ended classifications.

You had also written: "Descriptions have no power over reality. The idea that they could is called magic. And I doubt either of us believe in magic."

You are preaching to the choir here, Neo-Scolatic. I'm an Objectivist after all. I know that descriptions have no power over reality and that magic, if it is taken to mean the subordination of reality to consciousness, is not real. The objects of consciousness hold primacy over any and all subjects of consciousness. That's why my philosophy is called Objectivism.

Unfortunately, your worldview explicitly rejects this. Above it says that you are a Christian. Christianity holds that a subject of consciousness holds primacy over the objects of consciousness. I'm going to have to invoke that law of non-contradiction you said we both agree is an absolute. You can't have it both ways. If you accept logic then you have a decision to make.