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

[Angrboda]

I follow the objective theory of knowledge, one in which knowledge is not aquired apriori but is acquired by mans of perceiving reality and identifying what is perceived by an objective means.  In other words, logic applied to observed facts.  There is no reason, in reason, to split truth in the way the analytic-synthetic does. 

How did you acquire the knowledge of the logic that you apply to observed facts?

[Objectivist]

I follow the objective theory of knowledge, one in which knowledge is not aquired apriori but is acquired by mans of perceiving reality and identifying what is perceived by an objective means.  In other words, logic applied to observed facts.  There is no reason, in reason, to split truth in the way the analytic-synthetic does. 

How did you acquire the knowledge of the logic that you apply to observed facts?

By reason.  Reason is the how of knowledge.  Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates perceptual data.   The fundamental law of logic is the law of identity which is axiomatic and therefore formed directly from perception.    Knowledge is a process of identification which is a process of integration and differentiation.  It starts with perception and then abstraction based directly from perceptual inputs and proceeds through abstraction from abstraction to form wider concepts such as the concept furniture from the concepts table, chair, bed , dresser, end table, etc.  Axiomatic concepts have a special place in the hierarchy of knowledge.  They are at the junction of the perceptual and conceptual level of consciousness.  

The law of identity is the recognition that to exist is to be something, to possess a specific identity or set of attributes.  Attributes are how we integrate and differentiate existents.  That's why a proper definition includes both a genus, the wider grouping an entity belongs to, and a differentia or the attribute which separates that group of concretes froom the rest of the genus.  For example, household items would be the genus and table would be a species within that genus.  In the definition of man, rational animal, the animal part is the genus and the rational part is the differentia.

[Belacqua]

Yes, Belaqua, I understand this, but that something is generally accepted does not make it true.  I explained where this whole necessary-contingent dichotomy comes from.

I confess that I don't see yet how you're able to dismiss the necessary/contingent distinction. In itself it isn't anything demanding religion.

"This cat is a mammal" is a necessary truth, because by definition all cats are mammals. "This cat is a reptile" would be nonsense. 

"This cat is black" is a contingent truth, because it could be another color and still be a cat. 

Now how this gets applied to theology of course may be debated, but the distinction itself seems pretty unassailable.

[GrandizerII]

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.

[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.

[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.

Oh, and don't feel bad.  It took me years to understand this dichotomy.  When you do understand it a whole new world will open up for you and you'll see it everywhere.  It is pervasive.

[Objectivist]

Yes, Belaqua, I understand this, but that something is generally accepted does not make it true.  I explained where this whole necessary-contingent dichotomy comes from.

I confess that I don't see yet how you're able to dismiss the necessary/contingent distinction. In itself it isn't anything demanding religion.

"This cat is a mammal" is a necessary truth, because by definition all cats are mammals. "This cat is a reptile" would be nonsense. 

"This cat is black" is a contingent truth, because it could be another color and still be a cat. 

Now how this gets applied to theology of course may be debated, but the distinction itself seems pretty unassailable.

I know, it's one of the most difficult things I've ever learned.  Read my response to GrandizerII and see if that doesn't clear things up a bit.  It's hard for me to explain something that took me years to understand which means I have more work to do.

That's why I come to places like this forum. In trying to explain this it helps me to clarify my own thinking.

Here's a link to a more in depth discussion of this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqx0mingAF8

[GrandizerII]

I confess that I don't see yet how you're able to dismiss the necessary/contingent distinction. In itself it isn't anything demanding religion.

"This cat is a mammal" is a necessary truth, because by definition all cats are mammals. "This cat is a reptile" would be nonsense. 

"This cat is black" is a contingent truth, because it could be another color and still be a cat. 

Now how this gets applied to theology of course may be debated, but the distinction itself seems pretty unassailable.

I know, it's one of the most difficult things I've ever learned.  Read my response to GrandizerII and see if that doesn't clear things up a bit.  It's hard for me to explain something that took me years to understand which means I have more work to do.

That's why I come to places like this forum.  In trying to explain this it helps me to clarify my own thinking.

Here's a link to a more in depth discussion of this topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqx0mingAF8

If I'm honest, your last two responses to me didn't really clarify the bit about how my existence is necessary as opposed to contingent. I understand that you don't like the wording of "necessary vs. contingent", but I did ask a question about my limited existence in a way which doesn't require employing either the word "necessary" or "contingent". So let me rephrase it better so it doesn't use those words at all:

I exist now, but is it possible I could never have existed at all instead?

I did stumble upon this link while googling:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/necessity.html

As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no “facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise” as against “facts which must be.” There are only: facts which are. . . . Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are “necessary.” In this sense, to be is to be “necessary.” The concept of “necessity,” in a metaphysical context, is superfluous.

So it seems the answer to my question is "no", which means objectivism holds to the notion of modal necessitarianism, which I find to be quite unsatisfactory, to say the least. If this is the way this world could only be, then why this? Under modal necessitarianism, this is not a question to be asked, which is an attitude I disagree with.

I also have a problem with what appears to be strict empiricism. Sometimes, "imagination" is what gets us in the right direction of discovering facts, and if we didn't rely on that, we would've taken longer to discover those facts, if at all.

Thanks for the links you provided. Have checked the first one already, and will check the youtube one next soon.

[emjay]

[...]
I know, it's one of the most difficult things I've ever learned.  Read my response to GrandizerII and see if that doesn't clear things up a bit.  It's hard for me to explain something that took me years to understand which means I have more work to do.

That's why I come to places like this forum.  In trying to explain this it helps me to clarify my own thinking.

Here's a link to a more in depth discussion of this topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqx0mingAF8

Apologies for the interruption but just wanted to say...

It's been a long time since I've been seriously interested in philosophy but on the strength of this video, and what you've said so far on the subject, this has me absolutely fascinated... it's just struck a chord on many levels for me. So next job is to read the book it recommends in that video, Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology.

From the moment you started talking about all this it's had me enthralled, as something that appeals both it its message and its method... ie the latter being that there just seems something systematic about all this that really appeals to the way my mind works. As for the message, I think it will be great to learn about but I think it will also teach me a lot about general philosophy by means of its comparison with it, so a win-win there... sometimes that's the best way to learn I think; by noticing the differences between things.

So yeah, welcome to the forum and thanks for introducing me to these ideas

[Objectivist]

I know, it's one of the most difficult things I've ever learned.  Read my response to GrandizerII and see if that doesn't clear things up a bit.  It's hard for me to explain something that took me years to understand which means I have more work to do.

That's why I come to places like this forum.  In trying to explain this it helps me to clarify my own thinking.

Here's a link to a more in depth discussion of this topic:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqx0mingAF8

If I'm honest, your last two responses to me didn't really clarify the bit about how my existence is necessary as opposed to contingent. I understand that you don't like the wording of "necessary vs. contingent", but I did ask a question about my limited existence in a way which doesn't require employing either the word "necessary" or "contingent". So let me rephrase it better so it doesn't use those words at all:

I exist now, but is it possible I could never have existed at all instead?

I did stumble upon this link while googling:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/necessity.html

As far as metaphysical reality is concerned (omitting human actions from consideration, for the moment), there are no “facts which happen to be but could have been otherwise” as against “facts which must be.” There are only: facts which are. . . . Since things are what they are, since everything that exists possesses a specific identity, nothing in reality can occur causelessly or by chance. The nature of an entity determines what it can do and, in any given set of circumstances, dictates what it will do. The Law of Causality is entailed by the Law of Identity. Entities follow certain laws of action in consequence of their identity, and have no alternative to doing so. Metaphysically, all facts are inherent in the identities of the entities that exist; i.e., all facts are “necessary.” In this sense, to be is to be “necessary.” The concept of “necessity,” in a metaphysical context, is superfluous.

So it seems the answer to my question is "no", which means objectivism holds to the notion of modal necessitarianism, which I find to be quite unsatisfactory, to say the least. If this is the way this world could only be, then why this? Under modal necessitarianism, this is not a question to be asked, which is an attitude I disagree with.

I also have a problem with what appears to be strict empiricism. Sometimes, "imagination" is what gets us in the right direction of discovering facts, and if we didn't rely on that, we would've taken longer to discover those facts, if at all.

Thanks for the links you provided. Have checked the first one already, and will check the youtube one next soon.

your existence is necessary because your existence is a fact.  To understand this you have to recognize a distinction between what is called the metaphysically given and the manmade.  The metaphysically given is all that comes about without human choice as an input.  The metaphysically given could not be different and it could not have failed to occur.  The metaphysically given can not be judged true or false, it just is and could not be different.  It's the result of entities acting and interacting with each other according to their nature.  All actions are actions of entities, there are no floating actions and the nature of the action an entity takes is determined by that thing's identity.  Contradictions can't exist because that would mean some entity acting outside of or contrary to its nature.  If entities could act contrary to their nature, we'd have chaos and no knowledge would be possible.  

When it comes to human actions, they could have been different.  By our nature which is metaphysically given, we have a volitional form of consciousness.  We can depart from reality within the contents of our minds either by making a mistake in thinking or by deliberate evasion.  That's why all products of the mind must be judged true or false,
right or wrong, and the metaphysically given is the standard by which we must judge because it's impossible for the metaphysically given to be 'wrong'.  Once again we see the axiom of existence/ identity acting as the base of knowledge.  

So it's true that you didn't have to exist, your parents could have chosen not to have children, but once they did choose and you were born your existence is no longer potential but a full fact.  If you didn't exist we'd have a contradiction that can not exist.  Facts are absolutes once they are facts.  That's what I mean about your existence is necessary.  That's why it's so silly to talk about the odds of life developing.  Life as such is metaphysically given, it could not have failed to happen so the odds were 100% that life would happen on Earth.  There is no such thing as random chance, there is only our ability or lack to predict things.  

It is true that imagination plays a role in cognition.  Imagination is a rearrangement of things we've perceived into new combinations in our minds.  Imaginary things aren't real and don't exist.  But our imagination can be used to try out new things in our minds preparatory to trying to bring them into reality.  I remember when I was learning to do the specialized area of woodworking I do.  I had to invent a lot of tools and techniques because they didn't exist yet.  So I would spend hours thinking, imagining what if I take this material and attach it to this other material and shaped like this it might work for what I'm trying to do.  But then I had to actually make the tool before I could see if it worked and how well.  So imagination by itself is not a means of knowledge.  A mental grasp of reality, of what's real, what exists is knowledge and it starts with perception which by the way is metaphysically given.  It has to start with perception because that is the material that the mind rearranges into new combinations that don't exist in reality, yet.  The senses, like everything else that exists, act in certain ways and only in those ways, according to their nature.  So perceptions can not be wrong or right.  Their output is what we use to judge the output of our other type of consciousness, our reasoning faculty which can be wrong. That is why it is impossible for the senses to be 'invalid' as so many people believe.  Aristotle discovered this 2.300 years ago.  It's the discovery that led him to discover logic. 

By the way, existence as such is metaphysically given. It certainly wasn't a product of human choice. So it doesn't happen to be but could have been different. It is. Once it is, it's a fact and is necessary.