Certainty Defined
Home Up Site Map

An Explanation
Scholarly Critique -1
Scholarly Critique -2


The following construct simultaneous delineates "certainty" and proves the necessity for belief in the foundational premise central to all definitions of Deity.  Hence, for all possible sakes and purposes, it constitutes a logical proof for the existence of Ultimacy.

Unrestricted knowing is the bridge between the potential to know and total knowledge.  Human knowing is temporally limited.  This constraint causes both the 'potential to know' and 'total knowledge' to exceed our capability to know.

Nevertheless, in the process of thinking about these unknowables, we necessarily contribute a relative order to them, and hence, to every other unknowable that is necessarily contingent upon them. 

Order within the unknowable -- the sole means by which the self defines its difference -- necessitates admission of an Ordered Unknowable  (the only potential from which all difference can be known to arise for the self) thereby validating the fundamental distinction by which Deity is universally defined.


his is a totally "subjective" proof that is necessarily confirmed by everyone in the same identical way.  It achieves this relative universality, because reason must make differentiation within the 'unknowable' to qualify its own potential via the limits of its function.  By so  doing, it cannot help but impose its order upon the 'unknowable' in the form of an "unknowable pre-self" as well as an "unknowable post-self."  This causes the idea of 'order within the unknowable' to become the ultimate form of self.  Still, the idea of 'order within the unknowable' is inherently unintelligible, since it lacks temporal reference to foundation.  To overcome this problem it must be linked to the unchanging form of itself -- or to the 'ordered unknowable.'  It is in this way that the idea of an 'ordered unknowable' assumes to necessity for us.

As common sense would have it, it is this idea of an 'ordered unknowable' that is universally associated with Deity -- and rightly so -- for Deity must admit of order in order to be known to us.  At the same time, Its capability to manifest order must forever remain 'unknowable' for us, or else we could not make differentiation between ourselves and It.  The only idea capable of filling this bill is that of an 'ordered unknowable.'

So what does all this mean?  It means that as a result of the way that we are forced to view the 'unknowable,' we cannot help but confirm the necessity for Deity in the process of trying to give meaning to ourselves.  Whatever the implications that stem from this admission, it is undoubtedly a small cost to pay for a verifiable link between succession and simultaneity.  For without that link we would be unable to conceptualize temporal relevance at all.  And yes, we can and do function without this more in depth knowing, but once it becomes known to us, it cannot be logically denied.  From that point forward, the denial of Deity translates to the direct denial of self.

Obviously this form of proof does not confirm the richness of description attributed to Deity, correctly or incorrectly, by revelation, prophecy or myth.  However, it does give reason sufficient cause to believe in an 'ordered unknowable' (an idea central to the defining of both Deity and self) provided its use of this belief remains logical.  Anything more serves only to negate the independence of self (freewill) central to reason's function and crucial to its belief in the determination of all else.

The following diagram provides a pictorial representation of the inter-relatedness of some the more important ideas that we entertain.  It also shows how they necessarily conform to the structure which this proof illuminates -- a structure that imposes itself upon everything about which we think.

image4.gif (10936 bytes)

Back to Top