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

[GrandizerII]

Arbitrary, in the sense I'm using here, just means something like random. If it happens to be that the totality is just this one universe, with very specific initial constants that just are, then that's arbitrary to me. The constants could've been different values, there could've been more than one universe. So per my reasoning, this comes off as quite arbitrary.

Interesting statement you made about actual infinity. I don't see how it has to be impossible. Could you enlighten me on how, per Objectivism, the law of identity negates an actual infinite?

I'm not aware of anything that is beyond this universe, and nothing about my wording suggested that. I'm just using reason to see what could be possible, contemplating and asking questions based on my reasoning.

How have you ruled out those "arbitrary other existents" exactly?

Happy to learn more stuff about Objectivism from you, but I'm also here to share my perspective as well.

By what means are you aware of these other universes and why are they not included in the total of what exists?

As said in my last reply, I have no awareness of other universes, so the question is moot.

As for why other universes are not included in the total of what exists, I have no idea. Just as I have no idea why this universe is included in the total of what exists. I take it you don't either, given what you told me before.

To get a better idea of where I'm coming from here, I am using reason (and intuition) to contemplate possible universes and ponder whether they actually exist or not. None of this is suggesting I am aware of any other universes, though.

You may not like how I go about this epistemically (not that I'm claiming knowledge here anyway), and may be averse to the wording I'm using, but this is how I approach this stuff as a non-Objectivist. I do not hold to the exact same premises you do.

With regards to my question about why you think actual infinity is impossible, since I didn't get an answer from you on this, I decided to google what other Objectivists had to say about this. And once again, from what seems to be the official Objectivist site, I stumbled upon this:

There is a use of [the concept] “infinity” which is valid, as Aristotle observed, and that is the mathematical use. It is valid only when used to indicate a potentiality, never an actuality. Take the number series as an example. You can say it is infinite in the sense that, no matter how many numbers you count, there is always another number. You can always keep on counting; there’s no end. In that sense it is infinite—as a potential. But notice that, actually, however many numbers you count, wherever you stop, you only reached that point, you only got so far. . . . That’s Aristotle’s point that the actual is always finite. Infinity exists only in the form of the ability of certain series to be extended indefinitely; but however much they are extended, in actual fact, wherever you stop it is finite.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html

As someone who's had multiple discussions with theists about the Kalam Cosmological Argument, I am very well aware of the distinction between potential infinity and actual infinity, so this kind of objection isn't new to me.

My response to this is that while you cannot get from potential infinity to actual infinity, there is nothing metaphysically impossible that I can know of that prevents an absolute infinity from being a reality. After all, by definition, an actual infinity is already infinite, so there is no problem of counting or traversing into infinity here.