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

[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

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

Emjay,

Thank you so very much.  You don't know how happy I am to hear your words.  My mission is complete.  I set out to get one person to take an honest look at these ideas.  There is a system, the most beautiful system and you have only seen a tiny fraction of it.  I am glad that you are seriously interested in philosophy again.  No man or woman can live without one.  I think the reason these ideas have resonated with you is that you can see their relevance to your life unlike post modern philosophy.  Do you mind if I copy your words and send them to Dr. Valient?  I think they would make him happy.  He has lots of videos on youtube.  I urge you to watch more.  His name is James valiant.  

One word of caution. I would not start with Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. If you don't have a grounding in Objectivist metaphysics you will be lost. When I say it took me years to understand, I mean many years and I had that firm grasp of metaphysics that is absolutely necessary. I would start with Leonard Piekoff's series on youtube. I'll give you the link. There are 12 videos and if the link doesn't list to the playlist just do a search for the philosophy of Objectivism by Leonard Piekoff.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwTsagjP...CROvtu9NVR

You have made my day and my month and my years.  Thank you.

[emjay]

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

Emjay,

Thank you so very much.  You don't know how happy I am to hear your words.  My mission is complete.  I set out to get one person to take an honest look at these ideas.  There is a system, the most beautiful system and you have only seen a tiny fraction of it.  I am glad that you are seriously interested in philosophy again.  No man or woman can live without one.  I think the reason these ideas have resonated with you is that you can see their relevance to your life unlike post modern philosophy.  Do you mind if I copy your words and send them to Dr. Valient?  I think they would make him happy.  He has lots of videos on youtube.  I urge you to watch more.  His name is James valiant.  

You have made my day and my month and my years.  Thank you.

Hey there,

Sorry, I wasn't expecting this sort of response... you're welcome

I saw that guy in that video... very animated ... do you know him personally then, if you're wanting to sent a copy of my post to him? It's your call of course but I'd prefer you didn't... there's nothing profound in anything I've said, and tbh I don't see what's so controversial about this, that you'd have so much difficulty getting anyone to take it seriously. I mean obviously I haven't learnt the finer points yet, but the general message... or one of many... that logic cannot be, or shouldn't be, separated from facts (ie reality), if I'm understanding that right, seems pretty intuitive to me in hindsight.

[emjay]

Sorry @Objectivist, I just saw that you added more to your post. Sure, I look forward to checking out that playlist, and don't worry I know how hard it is to read philosophy... sometimes... depends who it is really, so since I've bought the book already I'll give it a go and see how well it resonates or well I can understand it, but with your warning in mind

[Objectivist]

Emjay,

Thank you so very much.  You don't know how happy I am to hear your words.  My mission is complete.  I set out to get one person to take an honest look at these ideas.  There is a system, the most beautiful system and you have only seen a tiny fraction of it.  I am glad that you are seriously interested in philosophy again.  No man or woman can live without one.  I think the reason these ideas have resonated with you is that you can see their relevance to your life unlike post modern philosophy.  Do you mind if I copy your words and send them to Dr. Valient?  I think they would make him happy.  He has lots of videos on youtube.  I urge you to watch more.  His name is James valiant.  

You have made my day and my month and my years.  Thank you.

Hey there,

Sorry, I wasn't expecting this sort of response... you're welcome

I saw that guy in that video... very animated ... do you know him personally then, if you're wanting to sent a copy of my post to him? It's your call of course but I'd prefer you didn't... there's nothing profound in anything I've said, and tbh I don't see what's so controversial about this, that you'd have so much difficulty getting anyone to take it seriously. I mean obviously I haven't learnt the finer points yet, but the general message... or one of many... that logic cannot be, or shouldn't be, separated from facts (ie reality), if I'm understanding that right, seems pretty intuitive to me in hindsight.

Hi Emjay,

No, I don't know him personally and I will respect your wishes.  I just know him from his videos.  I know it would make him happy and proud that something he said got somebody interested in philosophy.  I don't know what's so controversial about it either, but it is.  I've been called every name in the book for expressing these ideas and just the other day someone on this forum called me a sociopathic cultist.

[emjay]

Hey there,

Sorry, I wasn't expecting this sort of response... you're welcome

I saw that guy in that video... very animated ... do you know him personally then, if you're wanting to sent a copy of my post to him? It's your call of course but I'd prefer you didn't... there's nothing profound in anything I've said, and tbh I don't see what's so controversial about this, that you'd have so much difficulty getting anyone to take it seriously. I mean obviously I haven't learnt the finer points yet, but the general message... or one of many... that logic cannot be, or shouldn't be, separated from facts (ie reality), if I'm understanding that right, seems pretty intuitive to me in hindsight.

Hi Emjay,

No, I don't know him personally and I will respect your wishes.  I just know him from his videos.  I know it would make him happy and proud that something he said got somebody interested in philosophy.  I don't know what's so controversial about it either, but it is.  I've been called every name in the book for expressing these ideas and just the other day someone on this forum called me a sociopathic cultist.

I'm sorry to hear you're having such a hard time... from my point of view, what you have say is a breath of fresh air. But just to be clear my interest in it was not really in the sense of looking for a philosophy... as in the sense of a philosophy to live by (Objectivism), but rather that some of the ideas within it were interesting and appealing. That's not to say that I'm not interested now to learn about Objectivism as a whole - which is the subject of that playlist, and which, as long as it is, I really look forward to going through - but just to say that that was not the part that was initially appealing to me; rather the aspects about analysing concepts etc... that sort of thing just always appeals to me. But rest assured I'll watch that playlist with an open mind... I've started already; each lecture is about three hours long but it's relaxing so far and I like what he's saying... I'm just treating it as an audio book because it's basically audio only, and that makes it very relaxing. So who knows where it will lead (Objectivism as a whole)... whether it will resonate with me as a whole, but so far it's looking promising, but even if not, it'll still be something interesting to learn and get my teeth into.

[Objectivist]

Hi Emjay,

No, I don't know him personally and I will respect your wishes.  I just know him from his videos.  I know it would make him happy and proud that something he said got somebody interested in philosophy.  I don't know what's so controversial about it either, but it is.  I've been called every name in the book for expressing these ideas and just the other day someone on this forum called me a sociopathic cultist.

I'm sorry to hear you're having such a hard time... from my point of view, what you have say is a breath of fresh air. But just to be clear my interest in it was not really in the sense of looking for a philosophy... as in the sense of a philosophy to live by (Objectivism), but rather that some of the ideas within it were interesting and appealing. That's not to say that I'm not interested now to learn about Objectivism as a whole - which is the subject of that playlist, and which, as long as it is, I really look forward to going through - but just to say that that was not the part that was initially appealing to me; rather the aspects about analysing concepts etc... that sort of thing just always appeals to me. But rest assured I'll watch that playlist with an open mind... I've started already; each lecture is about three hours long but it's relaxing so far and I like what he's saying... I'm just treating it as an audio book because it's basically audio only, and that makes it very relaxing. So who knows where it will lead (Objectivism as a whole)... whether it will resonate with me as a whole, but so far it's looking promising, but even if not, it'll still be something interesting to learn and get my teeth into.

I just was happy that you are willing to look, not that you have to accept it.  You may end up rejecting it yourself.  I realized after I linked to that series that it was starting where I had left off the last time I was listening to it.  You need to start with the first one Metaphysics:  axioms, causality, and the primacy of existence.  Because each one builds on the other.  Just listen to that lecture and then spend a lot of time looking at reality.  Are the points he makes true?  Do they hold up?  I predict if you do that you will be hungry to listen to the rest and to go further.  Have fun.

[emjay]

I'm sorry to hear you're having such a hard time... from my point of view, what you have say is a breath of fresh air. But just to be clear my interest in it was not really in the sense of looking for a philosophy... as in the sense of a philosophy to live by (Objectivism), but rather that some of the ideas within it were interesting and appealing. That's not to say that I'm not interested now to learn about Objectivism as a whole - which is the subject of that playlist, and which, as long as it is, I really look forward to going through - but just to say that that was not the part that was initially appealing to me; rather the aspects about analysing concepts etc... that sort of thing just always appeals to me. But rest assured I'll watch that playlist with an open mind... I've started already; each lecture is about three hours long but it's relaxing so far and I like what he's saying... I'm just treating it as an audio book because it's basically audio only, and that makes it very relaxing. So who knows where it will lead (Objectivism as a whole)... whether it will resonate with me as a whole, but so far it's looking promising, but even if not, it'll still be something interesting to learn and get my teeth into.

I just was happy that you are willing to look, not that you have to accept it.  You may end up rejecting it yourself.  I realized after I linked to that series that it was starting where I had left off the last time I was listening to it.  You need to start with the first one Metaphysics:  axioms, causality, and the primacy of existence.  Because each one builds on the other.  Just listen to that lecture and then spend a lot of time looking at reality.  Are the points he makes true?  Do they hold up?  I predict if you do that you will be hungry to listen to the rest and to go further.  Have fun.

Cool. I think I probably will end up accepting it though; I've watched the first one 'What is Man?' and I'm hooked; he's a great speaker and it's all very clear, well reasoned, full of examples, and easy to follow, so it's been a joy to listen to and has indeed resonated with me quite a lot, especially because it seems not only philosophically insightful but also psychologically insightful. For instance I think I've generally accepted this reason-emotion dichotomy in life... that the two are generally in conflict... but never considered his perspective that emotions come from ideas, so the apparent conflict is instead the result of competing and sometimes contradictory or subconscious ideas. I thought that was very insightful and a whole new way of looking at things.

I said before that in this context I was not looking for a philosophy [to live by] but he talks about that inasmuch to say that everyone lives by a philosophy, whatever it may be, and whether it is a well thought out and reasoned philosophy or just a mish-mash of random accumulated ideas. I must admit mine has tended towards the latter, with the exception of Buddhism which has always appealed to me philosophically (not superstitious - my interest in it stops at reincarnation...but what it has to say about this life I think is pretty profound, and like your system based on the notion of not requiring faith; I think the Buddha put it something like 'nothing hidden in the closed fist of the teacher'; ie you don't... can't... take its ideas on faith, you have to see and understand them for yourself, through meditation etc, looking into your own mind). But we're not talking about Buddhism here, I'm just saying that's part of my philosophy in life as it stands, and this Objectivism feels similar... not in content but approach; both insightful, both introspective (maybe), both systematic, both for want of a better word, classifying, and both rigorously trying to prove themselves, point by point, which is great for me because I agree with your guy, you can't take philosophy on faith. So though I wasn't looking for a philosophy before, I think maybe I am now Or at least I understand its value more now.

Also, don't worry about the link, I didn't follow it directly because I was watching on a different device so had to look it up instead... so I watched from the first video in that playlist, 'What is Man?... the one you suggested I start with appears to be next.

[Objectivist]

I just was happy that you are willing to look, not that you have to accept it.  You may end up rejecting it yourself.  I realized after I linked to that series that it was starting where I had left off the last time I was listening to it.  You need to start with the first one Metaphysics:  axioms, causality, and the primacy of existence.  Because each one builds on the other.  Just listen to that lecture and then spend a lot of time looking at reality.  Are the points he makes true?  Do they hold up?  I predict if you do that you will be hungry to listen to the rest and to go further.  Have fun.

Cool. I think I probably will end up accepting it though; I've watched the first one 'What is Man?' and I'm hooked; he's a great speaker and it's all very clear, well reasoned, full of examples, and easy to follow, so it's been a joy to listen to and has indeed resonated with me quite a lot, especially because it seems not only philosophically insightful but also psychologically insightful. For instance I think I've generally accepted this reason-emotion dichotomy in life... that the two are generally in conflict... but never considered his perspective that emotions come from ideas, so the apparent conflict is instead the result of competing and sometimes contradictory or subconscious ideas. I thought that was very insightful and a whole new way of looking at things.

I said before that in this context I was not looking for a philosophy [to live by] but he talks about that inasmuch to say that everyone lives by a philosophy, whatever it may be, and whether it is a well thought out and reasoned philosophically or just a mish-mash of random accumulated ideas. I must admit mine has tended towards the latter, with the exception of Buddhism which has always appealed to me philosophically (not superstitious - my interest in it stops at reincarnation...but what it has to say about this life I think is pretty profound, and like your system based on the notion of not requiring faith; I think the Buddha put it something like 'nothing hidden in the closed fist of the teacher'; ie you don't... can't... take its ideas on faith, you have to see and understand them for yourself, through meditation etc, looking into your own mind). But we're not talking about Buddhism here, I'm just saying that's part of my philosophy in life as it stands, and this Objectivism feels similar... not in content but approach; both insightful, both introspective (maybe), both systematic, both for want of a better word, classifying, and both rigorously trying to prove themselves, point by point, which is great for me because I agree with your guy, you can't take philosophy on faith. So though I wasn't looking for a philosophy before, I think maybe I am now Or at least I understand its value more now.

Also, don't worry about the link, I didn't follow it directly because I was watching on a different device so had to look it up instead... so I watched from the first video in that playlist, 'What is Man?... the one you suggested I start with appears to be next.

Piekoff is a national treasure.  He was 17 years old when he was invited to go with a friend who knew Rand to visit and he was so nervous.  They were barely in the door when he blurted out this question about the Fountainhead having to do with the moral and the practical.  She proceeded to spend hours, just him and her discussing it and she was passionate and very concerned that he understood that the moral is the practical.  If you want to see more of him in action look up the 1984 debate on socialism vs. capitalism he had in Calgary.  You will see the most one-sided trouncing you are ever likely to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPC5lkpi1WI&t=6483s

I was really struck by how he and John Ridpath laid out their case systematically in terms of principles while the socialists never did address the question of the debate.  Instead, they wasted a lot of time and were totally concrete bound and anti-conceptual.  Ridpath called them out on it too. Their entire argument boiled down to "you're mean".  Sadly John Ridpath died this last year and Piekoff is 88 years old now and retired.

[emjay]

Cool. I think I probably will end up accepting it though; I've watched the first one 'What is Man?' and I'm hooked; he's a great speaker and it's all very clear, well reasoned, full of examples, and easy to follow, so it's been a joy to listen to and has indeed resonated with me quite a lot, especially because it seems not only philosophically insightful but also psychologically insightful. For instance I think I've generally accepted this reason-emotion dichotomy in life... that the two are generally in conflict... but never considered his perspective that emotions come from ideas, so the apparent conflict is instead the result of competing and sometimes contradictory or subconscious ideas. I thought that was very insightful and a whole new way of looking at things.

I said before that in this context I was not looking for a philosophy [to live by] but he talks about that inasmuch to say that everyone lives by a philosophy, whatever it may be, and whether it is a well thought out and reasoned philosophically or just a mish-mash of random accumulated ideas. I must admit mine has tended towards the latter, with the exception of Buddhism which has always appealed to me philosophically (not superstitious - my interest in it stops at reincarnation...but what it has to say about this life I think is pretty profound, and like your system based on the notion of not requiring faith; I think the Buddha put it something like 'nothing hidden in the closed fist of the teacher'; ie you don't... can't... take its ideas on faith, you have to see and understand them for yourself, through meditation etc, looking into your own mind). But we're not talking about Buddhism here, I'm just saying that's part of my philosophy in life as it stands, and this Objectivism feels similar... not in content but approach; both insightful, both introspective (maybe), both systematic, both for want of a better word, classifying, and both rigorously trying to prove themselves, point by point, which is great for me because I agree with your guy, you can't take philosophy on faith. So though I wasn't looking for a philosophy before, I think maybe I am now Or at least I understand its value more now.

Also, don't worry about the link, I didn't follow it directly because I was watching on a different device so had to look it up instead... so I watched from the first video in that playlist, 'What is Man?... the one you suggested I start with appears to be next.

Piekoff is a national treasure.  He was 17 years old when he was invited to go with a friend who knew Rand to visit and he was so nervous.  They were barely in the door when he blurted out this question about the Fountainhead having to do with the moral and the practical.  She proceeded to spend hours, just him and her discussing it and she was passionate and very concerned that he understood that the moral is the practical.  If you want to see more of him in action look up the 1984 debate on socialism vs. capitalism he had in Calgary.  You will see the most one-sided trouncing you are ever likely to see. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPC5lkpi1WI&t=6483s

I was really struck by how he and John Ridpath laid out their case systematically in terms of principles while the socialists never did address the question of the debate.  Instead, they wasted a lot of time and were totally concrete bound and anti-conceptual.  Ridpath called them out on it too. Their entire argument boiled down to "you're mean".  Sadly John Ridpath died this last year and Piekoff is 88 years old now and retired.

All new names to me (but I'm sure will soon become familiar ). Thanks for the link, I might check it out, and thanks for the chat, it's been very interesting But I think it's time for me to knock off, it's late here, so good night

[Brian37]

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?

Not sure what you are going for here, but I would warn that this could be an easy trap for someone to fall for in a moment of stress or medical illness. 

To me it would not matter if it could, that still would not answer the dead beat selective nature of our existence if one is going to also claim it is all loving and all good. It still would not make such a being worthy of wanting to be in the presence of knowing the harsh reality we live in. It would put us as humans in the realm of being mere toys, lab rats, poker chips, pawns. 

Dawkins is a very smart man, and makes great arguments in that book for other reasons, to me this particular statement he makes is an oversimplification. Sure should be able to prove his own existence if one is to claim he is all powerful, but that still would not make him moral based upon the reality we see. 

I've heard that he has said he wants his own death to be recorded so he can say he never would convert on his deathbed. Problem is if you are under heavy medications, or severe mental duress or diminished capacity you wouldn't always be aware of what you were saying as compared to your in tact lucid state when healthy.