Sweet Music Centre

What is knowledge? How do I know when I know something? That seems a straight forward question. I know my address, the name of my children, and the current year.

Simple.

But the question can quickly grow more complex. How do I know about the Civil War? I have read about it. But I also have read about UFOs, about ghosts, and about ancient Mayan gods. So while I might have a certain confidence in the existence of the Civil War of the United States, I might view with skepticism UFOs, ghosts and Mayan gods.

Thus, the existence of many written words about a subject does not provide a clear basis for knowing that I know something. My knowing that I know something involves a justification for that knowledge.

This brings us to what philosophers offer as a traditional, precise definition of knowledge, namely that knowledge is justified, true belief. In this definition, I know something if 1) it is indeed true, 2) I actually belief it to be true and 3) I have a justification for believing that it is true.

So, while I might believe in a God, and feel justified in that belief based on my prayer, study and personal experiences, a philosopher might not say I have knowledge, since significant questions may exist as to whether God does in fact exist.

Similarly, I might believe in UFOs, and UFOs might really exist, but I might think I know that UFOs exist based on blurry pictures of lights in the night sky. Thus many may say I am not justified in my belief.

What might proper knowledge look like? Let’s say on your vacation you visited the Washington monument in Washington D.C. Upon your return you told me that 1) you visited a famous monument in the Capital city of the United States, 2) the monument had the same name as the city and 3) the monument was shaped like a tall obelisk.

Even without your explicitly telling me, I would (most likely) have knowledge, in the philosophical sense, that you visited the Washington monument near the ellipse in Washington, D.C. I would say that based on my meeting the definition of knowledge, as follows:

• It is true you visited the Washington Monument.
• I believe you visited the Washington Monument.

In September, 2011, a discovery at the CERN particle accelerator appears to have demolished the foundations of Albert Einstein’s world-view, which stated that nothing could move faster than the speed of light. Assuming this to be correct, then the social ramifications of the discovery are so enormous, that the sooner we can repair the damage that an unbalanced scientific ethos has done to civilisation, the better. The fact that eminent scientists have predicted this collapsing of the fixed scientific world-view suggests that we re-examine their published concerns as a matter of urgency.

The Einsteinian world-view claimed that every aspect of 20th Century scientific thinking had to be governed by Einstein’s understanding of the second law of thermodynamics. This law was described by Maria Montessori as a greed energy law, responsible for destructive economic collapses. Montessori was listed in TIME Magazine’s Century of Science as the greatest scientist for 1907. Together with her colleague, the Jesuit priest, Tielhard de Chardin, they modified Einstein’s E=mc squared, in order to balance universal atomic decay with sub atomic creative energies. Their theories related to the research into aesthetics and ethics conducted during the 18th Century by Immanuel Kant.

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy lists Immanuel Kant as “one of the most influential philosophers in the history of Western philosophy. His contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics have had a profound impact on almost every philosophical movement that followed him”. The term ‘impact’ suggests the acquisition of learned wisdom from the Classical Platonic tradition of Greek philosophy, refers to the ancient concept of Wisdom through Beauty.

Immanuel Kant and his colleague Hans Christian Oersted, who discovered the electromagnetic field, had considered that such an ethical technology could be derived from the Platonic ‘Science for Ethical Ends’. In 1786 Hans Christian Oersted wrote his famous Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science, based upon Immanuel Kant’s theories. It can be deduced that their concept of ethical technology to make the electric motor a child’s toy by comparison, was associated with their understanding of the properties of their electromagnetic universal ethical purpose.

The existence of God ranks among the most profound and some would say most vexing mysteries we face. Many words have been written and spoken, with fervent pen and compelling voice.

With this article, I will add to those words, but with a particular slant. Rather than talk about whether God exists, I want to consider the other side. Can I reasonably conclude God does not exist? Can I be sure of non-existence?

And while on some questions I can argue to both sides, on this I can not. I find I must challenge people who say, definitively, there is no God.

To get started, we first need to define, briefly, a God for discussion here. We will use the Western/Middle Eastern God of the Bible.

The major monotheistic religions posit this God to be a single all-encompassing being, eternal in time, holy, Creator of the universe, the source of goodness, and the ultimate goal of our existence. This God has sent prophets in the form of man to deliver words of moral and theological truth. Mankind is to give homage and glory to this God and God will intervene with his power to strengthen individuals and mankind in general, and bring them to salvation.

So the question is can we definitely conclude this God does not exist.

Many have. They point out that over mankind’s history, Gods and gods of many cultures and many ages have come and gone, with their dogmas reduced to folklore and myth in the face of mankind’s expanding intellectual grasp.

Extrapolate forward, and the God of our current age appears headed for extinction, to be boxed into a corner and ultimately vanquished.

But I can not dismiss God. Why?

Metaphysics - Let’s start with the metaphysics of God. The Biblical God exists as a transcendental entity, eternal, outside of time and space, the creator of time and space.

Now that is an amazing belief, one which can readily strain credibility. How could such a thing be? But we must stop. You and I, humanity, we exist inside time and space. We are bounded by our three-dimensional, time dependent, limited-life-span existence.

So how can we know, for sure, what is outside of what any of our senses and instruments can measure. If I can not see outside of time and space, how can I make any firm conclusion about what exists in that transcendental realm?