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

[Objectivist]

Thanks, Objectivist, for your explanations on what objectivism is about. A few years back, I read a book on atheism by George Smith (who himself is/was an objectivist like you) and he brought up a lot of stuff that you've been bringing up in your posts, but since his book wasn't about objectivism perse, this is the first time I'm reading about this stuff in a fairly indepth manner.

And despite being on two opposite ends of the debate regarding God's existence, it also sounds quite similar to Thomism in terms of it being so methodical and precise with the definitions given to key terms, and its apparent aversion to modern analytic philosophy.

Still struggling with understanding some of the stuff you're talking about, though. And not really sure about existence being automatically necessary existence. I can make sense of such an idea in something like modal realism, but otherwise, it doesn't seem like my limited existence/being is necessary in any way. I seem to exist even though reality could've manifested differently in a way that never led to my existence eventually.

Thank you GrandizerII,

That really means a lot to me.  Yes, Analytic Philosophy is based on this error in understanding of concepts and the process by which they are formed.  Objectivism certainly is opposed to Analytic Philosophy because it divorces truth from reality and facts.  How does it do this?  Look at the opening post.  The question answers itself.  God is by definition omniscient and omnipotent among other attributes that it is supposed to have.  So we can answer the question by just looking at the definition and it says God is omipotent therefore God can do anything it wants and get anything it wants and believers claim that it wants us to know it.  So we have knowledge, supposedly, without appealing to reality but to words.  That's the error.  What objective inputs inform this definition.  None.

When we look around we don't see anything that is Omnipotent, perfect, all-knowing, or supernatural.  We don't see anything that is conscious but without a means of consciousness.  We don't see consciousness apart from some kind of nervous system.  We can't infer these qualities from looking at nature.  Inference from the natural only leads to more of the natural.  The only option we have is to imagine it.  Notice what they do.  The start by assuming a god exists.  Then they flesh out the definition with more imagining.  Well, if this god created the universe it must live outside the universe.  If it created all this stuff it must be all-powerful and it must be all-knowing.  It made everything perfect so it must be perfect.  This is pure rationalism and when I use that word it has a specific definition.  It means reasoning apart from reality, without reference to any facts.  That's the analytic side of the dichotomy.  According to this theory of knowledge, we can achieve certainty but these conclusions are not factual.  

What about the other side: empiricism?  It holds that Synthetic truths, the ones we can know by looking at reality are not certain.  We can't say that a man flying to the moon by means of flapping his arms is not true because that attribute is not included in the definition of man, so it's no contradiction to say that he can.  in other words it's logically possible we just haven't seen it happen yet.  It's not logically impossible because we can imagine it happening and there's nothing in the definition of man that precludes this ability.  We can say with certainty that a bachelor is an unmarried man and we can't even imagine a married bachelor because this contradicts the definition.  We can imagine him flying to the moon by flapping his wings, though, without contradicting anything in the definition.  

Notice the cognitive role of imagination on both sides of this dichotomy.  It rests ultimately on subjectivism, on the primacy of consciousness. But when one accepts the primacy of consciousness, there's nothing to distinguish the imaginary from the real, fact from fantasy, and true from false.  

This is why I reject it.  Existence has primacy, this fact is self evident.  But since this is a synthetic truth, it isn't certain, according to anal phil.   So this allows one to straddle the issue of primacy and allow the imaginary a role in cognition.  In other words, it gives the arbitrary a seat at the table of possibility that it should not have.  

Analytic truths are certain but not factual.  And factual truths are not certain.  This is the horrific result of a simple error.  It leads to skepticism or the belief that man can have no knowledge of reality.  

In case you're interested, I'm going to link to what I consider to be one of the best resources on Objectivism by someone who has mastered it. 

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/

The latest entry has some relevance to what we are discussing.