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

[Neo-Scholastic]

I'm saying an omnipotent being gets what it wants. There would be nothing denied to it.

Indeed. So we have a bit of a dilemma…depending on what we think God wants. There is of-course, a bit of debate about divine impassibility. If that doctrine is true, then such a seemingly cold and distant God-of-the-Philosophers doesn’t “want” anything. Only by special revelation, by means of the Passion Jesus of Nazareth, does the Christian glimpse the concept of Grace. And yes, this constitutes one of the mysteries of faith, i.e. one of those intractable questions I was talking about earlier…where pondering it is more valuable than resolving it.

I think that reason and faith are entirely incompatible with each other and faith destroys the ability to reason since things taken on faith cannot be integrated with our other knowledge.

IMO some existential questions must be answered without recourse to either facts or logic. For example, I choose to believe that the world is intelligible and that human reason is effective. That’s what I choose to believe (more about that below).

As far as anything being the ground of being, I think this is nonsensical. Existence exists. It doesn't need grounding. Our knowledge of it certainly does but being itself does not and metaphysically it can't have a grounding. The fact that existence exists is absolute and the idea of there being a ground to being rests on stollen concepts. So I reject it completely.

As I recall, “Existence exists,” was considered axiomatic by Rand but I find vague and useless as premise. What exactly categories of being does Rand include in existence? Physical bodies? Sets and numbers? And Rand dashes off to fight communism before dealing with the complex questions such as if there is a distinction between Being-As-Such and Being-In-Itself, etc. Does this particular physical reality exhaust the fullness of what is, as just an incurious brute fact, or is it a manifestation of one possibility out all possible worlds within a larger reality that includes necessary and true transcendent principles and powers across all possible worlds. My vote is for the larger reality. YMMV.

We can have certainty. There are certain fundamental facts that we can all know and we can't be wrong about them. These are facts that are self-evident, fundamental, conceptually irreducible, and inescapable. They ground our knowledge in reality. We can use them as a standard by which to judge all knowledge claims. They represent an objective starting point for knowledge.

<emphasis mine>

Are you sure about that? 😊 I would say if there is to be knowledge there are at least two conditions about the world that must be true: 1) First, the world must be intelligible and human reason must be efficacious. IMHO, these are articles of faith. Locally the world could seem intelligible while still being fundamentally absurd*. Can we ever be certain that what seems obvious and axiomatic is not an artifact of our biology? No, but what choice does one have?

*Sure seems absurd to me.

[Mister Agenda]

I think Rand took as axiomatic that we're not brains in jars and reality isn't virtual, that's what she meant by 'existence exists'. I can't prove she's wrong or right about that, but there doesn't seem much practical use in acting as though existence doesn't exist.

[tjdisc]

"There's a speech by Noam Chomsky somewhere on YouTube that I found enlightening a while ago. He talks about how different animals have limits on what concepts they can grasp. Apparently rats, for example, can solve surprisingly complicated math problems if they are rewarded for doing so. But it appears that no matter what is at stake, rats can't grasp the concept of prime numbers. For whatever reason, their brains just can't get it."

I marvel at this - it is beyond my imagination how an experiment could be devised that would prove that a rat can't "grasp the concept of prime nos.".  I guess if the point is akin to you can't get a rat to grasp ANY concept at all (like you can't get them to understand the concept of the psychological causes of depression) but its obviously silly to state as a conclusion if there really wasn't something real to measure to base a scientific conclusion on.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I think Rand took as axiomatic that we're not brains in jars and reality isn't virtual, that's what she meant by 'existence exists'. I can't prove she's wrong or right about that, but there doesn't seem much practical use in acting as though existence doesn't exist.

I believe, Ayn Rand, as a materialist was actually more concerned about Kant and German Idealism. But appart from her scorn and her unwarranted elevating of the statement "Existence exists," as one of her axioms, she did not grapple with any real ontological problems in her writings.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Rand wasn't a materialist and she didn't plenty of ontological problems .....

[Objectivist]

[quote pid='2134167' dateline='1673499230']
As far as anything being the ground of being, I think this is nonsensical.  Existence exists.  It doesn't need grounding.  Our knowledge of it certainly does but being itself does not and metaphysically it can't have a grounding.  The fact that existence exists is absolute and the idea of there being a ground to being rests on stollen concepts.  So I reject it completely.

As I recall, “Existence exists,” was considered axiomatic by Rand but I find vague and useless as premise. What exactly categories of being does Rand include in existence? Physical bodies? Sets and numbers? And Rand dashes off to fight communism before dealing with the complex questions such as if there is a distinction between Being-As-Such and Being-In-Itself, etc. Does this particular physical reality exhaust the fullness of what is, as just an incurious brute fact, or is it a manifestation of one possibility out all possible worlds within a larger reality that includes necessary and true transcendent principles and powers across all possible worlds. My vote is for the larger reality. YMMV.


[/quote]
I disagree with everything that you said but I'm going to confine my response to this one point, since it answers all the rest. 

It is axiomatic.  It's the formal recognition in the form of a philosophic principle that things exist, that there is a reality.  You ask what categories are included in the concept 'existence'.  All of them.  Everything that exists is included in the concept 'existence'.  Whether you find this vague or useless is irrellevant.  It identifies a fact of reality and that's what concepts and principles do.  Do you know what a principle is?  A principle is a conceptual identification of a general truth that other truths rest on.  Knowlege is hierarchical.  The axiom of existence occupies a very special place in the hierarchy of knowledge. The axiom of existence is the widest of all possible truths which all other truths rest on.  In the act of recognizing this most fundamental fact, we grasp two other facts, if only implicitly; that something exists that we are aware of and that we exist possessing consciousness.

  The very first question to be resolved in all of knowledge arises from these two recognitions.  What is the relationship between a conscious subject and its objects, an object being anything we are aware of or consider? That question has to be answered before you can go on to learn anything else about existence.  All knowledge is a mental grasp of an object by some subject, therefore the orientation of the subject-object relationship is a general truth that all other truths rest on.  That orientation is directly observable.  The objects of consciousness have metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness.  That means that things are what they are and do what they do independently of consciousness.  Anyone can test this at any time and at any place.  Pick any object in the range of your senses and think about it being different.  Think about it rising in the air and twirling around.  Does it obey or does it remain what and how it is?

These are those truths that we can be certain of because without them no knowledge is possible.  As soon as anyone says "it is" they are implicit.  It (existence) is (exists) and since this is a statement of knowledge (consciousness), the subject-object relationship is also implicit.  These truths are necessary and they are inescapable.  These truths are the defeater of the notion of the Christian God.

As the base of all knowledge anything that contradicts one of these principles can not be true.  They are the standard by which all truth is judged.  The notion of the Christian God violates all of them.  Therefore, I can know for certain that the claim that the Christian God exists  can not be true, and is self contradictory.   

Existence exists and consciousness exists.  Consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies what exists but does not create or alter what exists.   If you reject these truths then you have to reject all statements of knowledge but even this would assume the very thing rejected because if existence doesn't exist then there's nothing to reject and no consciousness to reject it.

[Objectivist]

Rand wasn't a materialist and she didn't plenty of ontological problems .....

I agree with the first part of what you sa but I don't know what the second part is supposed to mean.  Ayn Rand didn't make the mistakes that lead to all the so-called ontological problems.

[GrandizerII]

As I recall, “Existence exists,” was considered axiomatic by Rand but I find vague and useless as premise. What exactly categories of being does Rand include in existence? Physical bodies? Sets and numbers? And Rand dashes off to fight communism before dealing with the complex questions such as if there is a distinction between Being-As-Such and Being-In-Itself, etc. Does this particular physical reality exhaust the fullness of what is, as just an incurious brute fact, or is it a manifestation of one possibility out all possible worlds within a larger reality that includes necessary and true transcendent principles and powers across all possible worlds. My vote is for the larger reality. YMMV.

I disagree with everything that you said but I'm going to confine my response to this one point, since it answers all the rest. 

It is axiomatic.  It's the formal recognition in the form of a philosophic principle that things exist, that there is a reality.  You ask what categories are included in the concept 'existence'.  All of them.  Everything that exists is included in the concept 'existence'.  Whether you find this vague or useless is irrellevant.  It identifies a fact of reality and that's what concepts and principles do.  Do you know what a principle is?  A principle is a conceptual identification of a general truth that other truths rest on.  Knowlege is hierarchical.  The axiom of existence occupies a very special place in the hierarchy of knowledge. The axiom of existence is the widest of all possible truths which all other truths rest on.  In the act of recognizing this most fundamental fact, we grasp two other facts, if only implicitly; that something exists that we are aware of and that we exist possessing consciousness.

  The very first question to be resolved in all of knowledge arises from these two recognitions.  What is the relationship between a conscious subject and its objects, an object being anything we are aware of or consider? That question has to be answered before you can go on to learn anything else about existence.  All knowledge is a mental grasp of an object by some subject, therefore the orientation of the subject-object relationship is a general truth that all other truths rest on.  That orientation is directly observable.  The objects of consciousness have metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness.  That means that things are what they are and do what they do independently of consciousness.  Anyone can test this at any time and at any place.  Pick any object in the range of your senses and think about it being different.  Think about it rising in the air and twirling around.  Does it obey or does it remain what and how it is?

These are those truths that we can be certain of because without them no knowledge is possible.  As soon as anyone says "it is" they are implicit.  It (existence) is (exists) and since this is a statement of knowledge (consciousness), the subject-object relationship is also implicit.  These truths are necessary and they are inescapable.  These truths are the defeater of the notion of the Christian God.

As the base of all knowledge anything that contradicts one of these principles can not be true.  They are the standard by which all truth is judged.  The notion of the Christian God violates all of them.  Therefore, I can know for certain that the claim that the Christian God exists  can not be true, and is self contradictory.   

Existence exists and consciousness exists.  Consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies what exists but does not create or alter what exists.   If you reject these truths then you have to reject all statements of knowledge but even this would assume the very thing rejected because if existence doesn't exist then there's nothing to reject and no consciousness to reject it.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how "existence exists" explains why/how particular things exist. Yes, existence is real, but so what? How is this more explanatory than saying God exists (for example)?

For example, how do you get from "existence exists" to "this local universe exists". How does a principle do that exactly?

[Objectivist]

I disagree with everything that you said but I'm going to confine my response to this one point, since it answers all the rest. 

It is axiomatic.  It's the formal recognition in the form of a philosophic principle that things exist, that there is a reality.  You ask what categories are included in the concept 'existence'.  All of them.  Everything that exists is included in the concept 'existence'.  Whether you find this vague or useless is irrellevant.  It identifies a fact of reality and that's what concepts and principles do.  Do you know what a principle is?  A principle is a conceptual identification of a general truth that other truths rest on.  Knowlege is hierarchical.  The axiom of existence occupies a very special place in the hierarchy of knowledge. The axiom of existence is the widest of all possible truths which all other truths rest on.  In the act of recognizing this most fundamental fact, we grasp two other facts, if only implicitly; that something exists that we are aware of and that we exist possessing consciousness.

  The very first question to be resolved in all of knowledge arises from these two recognitions.  What is the relationship between a conscious subject and its objects, an object being anything we are aware of or consider? That question has to be answered before you can go on to learn anything else about existence.  All knowledge is a mental grasp of an object by some subject, therefore the orientation of the subject-object relationship is a general truth that all other truths rest on.  That orientation is directly observable.  The objects of consciousness have metaphysical primacy over the subject of consciousness.  That means that things are what they are and do what they do independently of consciousness.  Anyone can test this at any time and at any place.  Pick any object in the range of your senses and think about it being different.  Think about it rising in the air and twirling around.  Does it obey or does it remain what and how it is?

These are those truths that we can be certain of because without them no knowledge is possible.  As soon as anyone says "it is" they are implicit.  It (existence) is (exists) and since this is a statement of knowledge (consciousness), the subject-object relationship is also implicit.  These truths are necessary and they are inescapable.  These truths are the defeater of the notion of the Christian God.

As the base of all knowledge anything that contradicts one of these principles can not be true.  They are the standard by which all truth is judged.  The notion of the Christian God violates all of them.  Therefore, I can know for certain that the claim that the Christian God exists  can not be true, and is self contradictory.   

Existence exists and consciousness exists.  Consciousness is the faculty that perceives and identifies what exists but does not create or alter what exists.   If you reject these truths then you have to reject all statements of knowledge but even this would assume the very thing rejected because if existence doesn't exist then there's nothing to reject and no consciousness to reject it.

I'm still having a hard time understanding how "existence exists" explains why/how particular things exist. Yes, existence is real, but so what? How is this more explanatory than saying God exists (for example)?

For example, how do you get from "existence exists" to "this local universe exists". How does a principle do that exactly?

It doesn't.  That's not it's job.  It's job as I said is to identify a general truth on which other truths rest.  How you get to further knowledge is by the same process of looking at reality and identifying what you perceive.  We don't just recognize that existence exists and deduce everything else from that recognition.  That's not the way knowledge works.  We learn almost everything inductively.  Only after we've done induction can we apply that inductive knowledge to particulars.  We can't say existence exists and then jump straight to why/ how does the local universe exist.  What is a universe, what does local mean?  What is causation?  Before we get to those concepts we've already made a long chain of discoveries that lead up to those questions and when we get to them we answer them, if they are not improper questions, by looking to reality.  We don't start with nothing and then seek a reason for why existence exists.  You have to start with existence and then see what else you can learn about it.  The question of what came before everything and what caused it is an improper question because it makes use of stolen concepts.  To steal concepts is to make use of them while ignoring their roots including the recognition that existence exists.

[Objectivist]

Hello and good evening, Belacqua.  I apologize because I don't know how to do the quote function on this forum.  I haven't spent much time here on this forum and I haven't learned it yet.  Plus, I'm not very good with computer stuff.  So Bear with me.

I'm saying an omnipotent being gets what it wants.  There would be nothing denied to it.  

To your point about reason:  I don't know what else exists out there in the universe either regarding other ways of thinking but if it were fundamentally different to human reason then I don't know why we would identify it as the reason. My answer is if we discover some other type of reason then we'll deal with it then.  Until then it's just an arbitrary and useless concept. I think that reason and faith are entirely incompatible with each other and faith destroys the ability to reason since things taken on faith can not be integrated with our other knowledge.  I like Harry Binswanger's saying:  faith is an icepick to the brain.  

Of course, we can't know what a god will do because it is a completely arbitrary notion.  But I do know that if this god supposedly created us then it knows our means of knowledge is reason and it would be able to perfectly interact with our way of knowing and it would not ask for us to have faith.  

As far as anything being the ground of being, I think this is nonsensical.  Existence exists.  It doesn't need grounding.  Our knowledge of it certainly does but being itself does not and metaphysically it can't have a grounding.  The fact that existence exists is absolute and the idea of there being a ground to being rests on stollen concepts.  So I reject it completely. 

As far as there being disagreement on facts, we have a way to resolve these disagreements.  Your statement essentially says that we can't have knowledge because we can never have certainty that we have the facts right.  If that's the case then there's no use discussing anything.  But I know that this is not the case.  We can have certainty.  There are certain fundamental facts that we can all know and we can't be wrong about them.  These are facts that are self-evident, fundamental, conceptually irreducible, and inescapable.  They ground our knowledge in reality.  We can use them as a standard by which to judge all knowledge claims.  They represent an objective starting point for knowledge.  

Yes, my experience with Christianity has been nothing but a disappointment but that is not why I reject it.  I reject it because it isn't true.

Indeed the idea that any being can be the basis of reality flies in the face observation. Minds can perceive reality or at least representations of it. But creating or dictating it let alone grounding it is simply contrary to observation.

I agree with you completely.