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

[Objectivist]

How?  Arbitrary means unsupported by any evidence either perceptual or conceptual.  Once we are aware of some objects then a total is implicit.  An actual infinite can not exist.  It defies the law of identity.  By what means are you aware of these other existents that exist outside of the total and how can we distinguish these other existents from somehting that is merely imaginary?  It's these other existents that are arbitrary and we have a way of ruling them out.

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.

Yes, everything about your wording implies that there is something outside of the total of existence.  You said, "The total of what actually exists appears to be quite arbitrary if the total is basically this universe or a limited range of universes."  You are implying that I just picked some things to include in the total and left other things out.  I did not do this.  I defined the universe as everything that exists seen as a whole.  What did I leave out?  What rational justification is there for saying something exists but is not part of the total of what exists?  I'm very careful to define my terms objectively.  

How have I ruled out those "arbitrary other existents"?  By means of reason.  By recognizing that all concepts are open-ended.  They include a potentially infinite number of 
units.  The concept 'universe' which is synonymous with existence is the widest of all concepts.  There is nothing left out of it.  It includes all existents, their relationships, their identities, their actions, all their attributes...absolutely everything including things we aren't even aware of yet.  If I said that the universe was all matter, energy, space, and time, then that would be arbitrary.  That would be a reverse package deal and that would be a fallacy. Objectivism holds that they are objective.  They are the form in which we identify and retain knowledge of facts.  They carry our knowledge beyond the perceptual concretes of our surroundings to include the entirety of existence.

[GrandizerII]

Yes, everything about your wording implies that there is something outside of the total of existence.  You said, "The total of what actually exists appears to be quite arbitrary if the total is basically this universe or a limited range of universes."  You are implying that I just picked some things to include in the total and left other things out.  I did not do this.  I defined the universe as everything that exists seen as a whole.  What did I leave out?  What rational justification is there for saying something exists but is not part of the total of what exists?  I'm very careful to define my terms objectively.

I can see how you would've perceived what I said from your end. So my sin was I didn't use "universe" in the same sense you did. Mea culpa.

Still, you should've known from the context what I was saying. Because as you can see in the quote above, I didn't treat "totality" as semantically identical to "universe". Note the "or a limited range of universes" as the other thing that a totality could be.

Now, what I did imply, or rather say, is that whatever the totality may be, it seems like you could potentially add more and more to the totality, so that the totality could be more "full" than it actually is. I'm aware that due to the constraints of your worldview, you will struggle to agree that the totality of existence could potentially be different, but nothing of what I actually said was logically problematic.

How have I ruled out those "arbitrary other existents"?  By means of reason.  By recognizing that all concepts are open-ended.  They include a potentially infinite number of 
units.  The concept 'universe' which is synonymous with existence is the widest of all concepts.  There is nothing left out of it.  It includes all existents, their relationships, their identities, their actions, all their attributes...absolutely everything including things we aren't even aware of yet.  If I said that the universe was all matter, energy, space, and time, then that would be arbitrary.  That would be a reverse package deal and that would be a fallacy. Objectivism holds that they are objective.  They are the form in which we identify and retain knowledge of facts.  They carry our knowledge beyond the perceptual concretes of our surroundings to include the entirety of existence.

Even if you defined the universe in such a manner, the question I posed would still be meaningful to ask imo. Why? Because for you, the universe constitutes all actual things. But what about things that ended up not being actual but could've been? You may not want to agree that the question remains meaningful, and that's fine. You choose what questions you want to grapple with at the end of the day. I am only posing these questions here to you, in case you wish to have a crack at them.

[Objectivist]

The Universe is everything that exists.  That's what the word means.  Uni means one and versus means turning.  The Latin universus means turning into one or whole.

Words can change meaning over time. Because of repeated suggestions of a multiverse in this day and age, the word "universe" has come to be understood as a part of reality and not the whole.

Either way, if you're still not ever sure what someone means by a particular word, it's always good to ask.

Now if you define the universe as only part of what exists then you need to say how you are aware of this other part or it's simply an arbitrary claim.

Nothing wrong with "arbitrary", as you defined it earlier. Something not having evidence for its existence doesn't make it non-existent. We could still use reason and intuition to judge the plausibility of its existence. Well, some of us non-Objectivists, at least.

If, in your view, the concept of 'universe' does not denote the totality, what does?  See how the analytic-synthetic dichotomy poisons one's mind.  If we define the universe as  Just part of what exists, what justifies doing this.  Nothing.  I'll tell you why this is done.  It's to make room for a god to exist and to try and escape from the law of identity and the primacy of existence but it doesn' work because it is a completely arbitrary definition, based on no objective inputs. It's just a game of manipulating words.

Thanks for sharing your personal opinion here, which is not supported by the evidence and therefore is "arbitrary".   

If you start counting existents.....1, 2, 3....however many you count it is always a specific quantity.  Infinity is not a specific quantity, it's not a number.  It does not exist in reality.  I agree that it does have a use in mathematics to denote the potential to carry a number sequence on indefintely

Infinity is an unlimited quantity. I didn't see any good argument for why an actual infinite is impossible.

What I see is you making an argument against potential infinity not being actual infinity, which I can agree with. If you start counting from the number one all the way into infinity, you will never reach some final destination called "infinity", true. But so what? This doesn't invalidate actual infinites.

We don't perceive the universe, we perceive existents.  And since we know that we aren't perceiving all that exists then by the law of identiy we know that some specific quantity of existents exist but we will never know what specific quantity is.  But we need a concept in order to denote the whole and that's what the concept 'universe' does.  To say that there is another realm of existence outside the universe is a contradiction.  If you are fine with holding a contradiction then there's no point in continuing the discussion because you have abandoned reason.

And do you really honestly think that I've been saying that there is another realm of existence beyond the whole of existence? Come on, man, be more charitable than that.

It's fine if you feel a discussion with me is futile, and you want to cease the discussion with me. You're a free person after all.

Big questions are "big" for a reason. They're not meant to be easy to answer, if at all possible. Objectivists are not the first, nor the last, to struggle with these.

We're just going around in circles now.  We are not going to agree. I do honestly think that you are implying that something exists outside the total when you say "The total of what actually exists appears to be quite arbitrary if the total is basically this universe or a limited range of universes". I've already given my definition of 'universe'  and it can not possibly be arbitrary.  We have a fundamental disagreement that is irreconcilable so I thank you for the discussion GrandizerII but I'm going to end it here.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a simple issue to resolve. Grand is speaking of the observable universe, known universe, or near universe. The difference will matter because imprecision or difference here will manifest exponentially all along the line. If we correctly understand what the term universe means, and how Objectivist is employing it, then there can be no "limited range of universes". The universe cannot, as all that exists, include things that do not exist. Similarly, we cannot add anything to everything. There's no "everything plus one" that's just another entity in "everything".

[GrandizerII]

Words can change meaning over time. Because of repeated suggestions of a multiverse in this day and age, the word "universe" has come to be understood as a part of reality and not the whole.

Either way, if you're still not ever sure what someone means by a particular word, it's always good to ask.


Nothing wrong with "arbitrary", as you defined it earlier. Something not having evidence for its existence doesn't make it non-existent. We could still use reason and intuition to judge the plausibility of its existence. Well, some of us non-Objectivists, at least.


Thanks for sharing your personal opinion here, which is not supported by the evidence and therefore is "arbitrary".   


Infinity is an unlimited quantity. I didn't see any good argument for why an actual infinite is impossible.

What I see is you making an argument against potential infinity not being actual infinity, which I can agree with. If you start counting from the number one all the way into infinity, you will never reach some final destination called "infinity", true. But so what? This doesn't invalidate actual infinites.


And do you really honestly think that I've been saying that there is another realm of existence beyond the whole of existence? Come on, man, be more charitable than that.

It's fine if you feel a discussion with me is futile, and you want to cease the discussion with me. You're a free person after all.

Big questions are "big" for a reason. They're not meant to be easy to answer, if at all possible. Objectivists are not the first, nor the last, to struggle with these.

We're just going around in circles now.  We are not going to agree. I do honestly think that you are implying that something exists outside the total when you say "The total of what actually exists appears to be quite arbitrary if the total is basically this universe or a limited range of universes". I've already given my definition of 'universe'  and it can not possibly be arbitrary.  We have a fundamental disagreement that is irreconcilable so I thank you for the discussion GrandizerII but I'm going to end it here.

I disagree that that's what I'm saying, but it is what it is. Thanks for the discussion regardless.

[Objectivist]

It's a simple issue to resolve.  Grand is speaking of the observable universe, known universe, or near universe.  The difference will matter because imprecision or difference here will manifest exponentially all along the line.  If we correctly understand what the term universe means, and how Objectivist is employing it, then there can be no "limited range of universes".  The universe cannot, as all that exists, include things that do not exist.  Similarly, we cannot add anything to everything.  There's no "everything plus one" that's just another entity in "everything".

We're talking about the granddaddy of all concepts here in a discussion about a philosophical issue.  It's perfectly OK to have different definitions in different contexts because the reference of a concept is wider than the definition.  So if science studies matter, energy, space, and time then they can narrow the definition somewhat because their field of study is narrower.  Physcologists study the mind and human behavior.  Biologists study all life.  These things are all included in the philosophical definition that I gave.  If we come across some new form of matter or thing that we didn't know existed before it is automatically included in the concept 'universe'.

This is where a theory of concepts is crucial because it includes as the final step in concept formation the rules of definition which are not arbitrary but based on the mental process of forming concepts and their use in cognition.  They are based on how our minds work which makes them objective rules or principles.

[GrandizerII]

Without going into details since that would just force me to enter into another discussion with you here, Objectivist, which we agreed to both cease. I can assure you I was not confining the scope to something "below" the metaphysics level. Basically, I was misunderstood (to be fair, it wasn't just you who misunderstood me from what I can see now). I would like to elaborate, but let's leave it at that.