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

[Orbit]

I always felt like if anyone had God talk to them, they would quickly be deemed insane with delusions of grandeur. But as others have said, a truly omni-potent and omniscient God would know how to convince humanity of his existence.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think the real question is what could a god do that in principle could not be faked by, say, advanced aliens?  By prove I presume that you mean make so that we believe it is undeniably true that God exists.  Unfortunately, many things that fall short of a god can do this.  On the individual level, all it takes is a brain tumor or epilepsy.  So the question turns on God being able to provide us with a judgment that is infallible.  Short of changing what we are I do not imagine that this can be done.  The idea that the communication channel that runs from the perceived to the perceiver is wholly dependent upon the properties of the transmitting entity is old and fraught with problems.  As much of our perception is within the purview of our brains' operation, it doesn't seem possible to eliminate potential sources of error.

This of course hinges a bit on what you mean by 'prove'.  If by prove you mean something less than establishing absolute certainty, then I'm not sure the question doesn't lose its value.  We already have people convinced by evidence that provides less than complete certainty of the conclusion.  That's a sliding scale with no well-defined stopping points.

I have to admit that I do not fully understand of the OP question. IMHO wondering about God is just as important as knowing anything specific about God.* Admittedly, I personally find Divine Hiddenness perplexing and occasionally troubling. At the same time, I do not see Divine Hiddenness as a stumbling block to faith. As I see it, the Christian lives in the understanding that creation is fallen, that it is less than it could be. IMHO creation is apparently absurd in the existentialist sense. I truly sympathize with true existential nihilism - the intolerably brief ephemera of meaningless human existence bound fore and aft by silent eternities. I get it. The sentiment lends itself to atheism. But I am not an atheist. Despite the incorrigible reality of the Nietzschean Abyss staring down at me. My wondering heart ponders what Reason** says must be there yet cannot be directly seen. The so-called "Negative Way" is the direction from which I approach where I hope to find God. I look for God in the outlines of what seems to be missing most from the world.

All that said, it doesn't address the notion that God's existence should be obvious. Except...should it be obvious? As obvious as what? Material things? Physicial events? Personally, I do not think about heavenly things in terms of material bodies. And for me, prayer is more about trying to discern and conform myself to God's will than it is about pleading for an intervention...expect perhaps for the Lord to provide spiritual comfort to remote Others. Nor is prayer a substitute for action or defense against consequences, IMHO.

There seems to be a modern demand for certainty. Some people, quite a lot really, need the comfort of answers-that-satisfy dressed up as certainties. And while I do not believe this is limited to to religious people, there are prominent and popular people who abuse the religious sentiment with slick doctrines that cover too much nuance. So I am not unsympathetic to skeptical criticisms of religion in this regard, I just think it is a mistake to think of this as an epistemic temptation limited to religious thinking. Some people just need more certainty about certain things than others. Well,...kinda to be expected really.

* Of course willingness to express uncertainty about articles of faith is not a universal sentiment among the faithful.
**  Whether human reason is capable of discerning Absolutes or instead only creating cognitive artifacts contingent on our biology is IMO a primal epistemic choice that must be made without recourse to evidence.

[Objectivist]

In his seminal book, The God Delusion, Professor Richard Dawkins states the following:

"If he existed and chose to reveal it, God himself could clinch the argument noisily and unequivocally in his favor."

If there was a god, could he prove that he was God?

I think if there really was a god that wanted us to know it then there'd be no question at all, this whole debate about gods would never have arisen, it would be absolutely obvious to everyone and I mean self evident, directly perceivable.  No proof would be necessary.  I mean, come on, this god supposedly willed a whole universe, unimaginably vast in size,  and perfect let's not forget, because it wanted to, just like it supposedly wants us to know it.  And you are trying to tell me (not you Jehanne) that it can't prove to every one of its creations that it exists.  It still requires faith.  A rational being does not ask other rational beings to have faith.  So either this god does not exist or it is completely irrational.

[Jehanne]

I have to admit that I do not fully understand of the OP question.

24 Now Thomas, one of the twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails, and place my finger in the mark of the nails, and place my hand in his side, I will not believe.”

26 Eight days later, his disciples were again in the house, and Thomas was with them. The doors were shut, but Jesus came and stood among them, and said, “Peace be with you.” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.” (John 20, RSV)

What is difficult to understand here?

As for 'advanced aliens" faking it, if we accept the Conservation of Energy on macroscopic scales, then, aliens, however advanced they may be, are still natural beings bound by natural laws.

But, in the spirit of the Turning Test, are there things that an omnipotent and omniscient God could do that advanced aliens could not do?

[Neo-Scholastic]

But, in the spirit of the Turning Test, are there things that an omnipotent and omniscient God could do that advanced aliens could not do?

Yes...be the self-subsisting and necessary ground of all existence. Duh.

[Anomalocaris]

But, in the spirit of the Turning Test, are there things that an omnipotent and omniscient God could do that advanced aliens could not do?

Yes...be the self-subsisting and necessary ground of all existence. Duh.

Is that any reason why an advanced alien could convincingly represent himself to you as both of these things?

[Jehanne]

But, in the spirit of the Turning Test, are there things that an omnipotent and omniscient God could do that advanced aliens could not do?

Yes...be the self-subsisting and necessary ground of all existence. Duh.

Are you saying that "something and not nothing, therefore, God exists"? If true, is that all there is to being God? Nothing more??

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes...be the self-subsisting and necessary ground of all existence. Duh.

Are you saying that "something and not nothing, therefore, God exists"?  If true, is that all there is to being God?  Nothing more??

I suppose now you want me to explain how one goes from what-could-be-no-other-way to seeing Divine Love and Wisdom as the very foundation of the reality. Sure. I'll just condense 40 years of my theological reflection and private study into a couple sentences <sarcasm> :-) I cannot do that and besides you have your own wisdom that has gotten you this far through life. Who am I to say otherwise? I can point you in the what I think is the right direction, but personally I do not think you're interested because you keep tying to proof-text me.

[Belacqua]

A rational being does not ask other rational beings to have faith.  So either this god does not exist or it is completely irrational.

This is assuming that an omnipotent God would be rational in the same way as people. But since people are far from being omnipotent or omniscient, we really don't know what such a God would do.

The argument seems to be "if I were God I would do this, but since no one is doing this there can't be a God." This seems very anthropocentric to me.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yes...be the self-subsisting and necessary ground of all existence. Duh.

Is that any reason why an advanced alien could convincingly represent himself to you as both of these things?

An advanced alien could not rationally the satisfy requirements of a self-subsisting necessary ground for all existence. If you truly believe otherwise, I challenge you to demonstrate that an advanced alien could conceivably be the necessary ground of all existence. That's quite the implicit claim you have made! :-)

As for me, I consider the Principle of Non-Contradiction an Absolute. It is an ever-present effect of the Eternal. If there were/are advanced aliens, they would be equally bound by the PNC. Since the PNC is logically prior to all contingent beings, I could never be rationally convinced that an advanced alien was cause of the PNC.