The Nature of Reality, Prologue 2, If there is a God…

If there is a God then we need to deal with those issues of syncretism within the church also. Why do many of or theological points come from the Greeks? But that is not directly the point of this series.

We protestants are known for pointing at the modern syncretisms of the Catholic church (that is, taking up beliefs and practices of other religions in other parts of the world) but we tend to ignore the fact that it was the government of Rome that syncretised Christianity with its Greco-Roman philosophy in the fourth century, and protestants took most of that syncretism with them in the Reformation. This was the real issue with Galileo, they believes the Greco-Roman model of the universe propounded by Ptolemy. This was not a Biblical model at all or in any manner. Keep reading this series to get specifics.

The following was written when I was an Adjunct Professor in a major university in the College of Sciences in November of 2007, and chief scientist on multiple investigations. It has been edited and amended several times to prepare this for publication.

It was written in response to certain arguments presented at the Evangelical Philosophical Society Annual Apologetics Conference, November 15-17, 2007, in San Diego, California.

Several philosophers there presented worldviews that were an admixture of Christian and Naturalistic worldviews, but not one knew they had mixed the two models of the universe, but none were actually naturalists. At least several of these philosophers had mixed different cosmologies together without realizing it.

Naturalism falsely claims that the only things that are real are things we can in some way measure, or sense. Einstein shaped his theories on this worldview, which resulted in the rejection of the ether theory (that there was some kind of invisible mass that all the physical things in the universe effortlessly pass through), resulting in his famous formula (E=MC²) to miss 95.44% of the mass of the universe, and he knew this before he died, his theory could not be applied directly by astronomers because of this fact.

The best data we have is from Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, or “WMAP,” and indicates the total amount of matter/energy in the Universe in the form of Dark Energy is 72.8% of its mass (within 1.6%) then add the matter found as non 'particle' background matter or Dark Matter comprises 22.7% (within 1.4%) of the non-baryonic 'particle' energy, (what we understand as mass and energy are all classes as Baryons, you might add leptons or hadrons).

What we see as mass, that is all the things Naturalism and Scientism assumed were all that exists, is comprised of several classes of baryonic particles, a.k.a. atoms, and comprises only 4.56% of the mass of the universe and this data is accurate within 0.16%. (Author’s Note: Understand that this means Einstein in writing off Lorentz’ luminiferous aether missed 95.44% of the mass of the universe. Lorentz was right.)

One problem with naturalism is that it ignores by explaining away the metaphysical things we clearly see around us.

(End.)

Now don’t go all flaky on me. I strongly resist mysticism of all types including those I see in local churches.

By “metaphysical” I mean, all things not physical, such as personality and mind, thoughts and ideas, first principles and abstract thinking, which naturalism, being that it is a theory, actually is metaphysical itself. This is an irony since its claim, if true (“there is nothing but the physical, i.e., nothing metaphysical”), would have prevented the theory. If it were true there would be no minds to notice it. The argument destroys itself, ergo, is absurd ab initio.

The Christian worldview that these good gentlemen from the Evangelical Philosophical Society missed, is one wholly derived from the Bible, and not syncretized with the Greeks. I argue that is the only way it ought to be derived if it is to be called “Christian.” However, all too many Christians I have spoken to have worldviews which are cross contaminated with non-Christian thinking, as they did at the above referenced conference resulting in contaminated theories and discussions and conclusions.

It is time for a second reformation, which, in my view, is already underway, and, it is fraught with pitfalls and perils as we move from the old base to an uncertain future.

This is not an attack on those older views per se, simply a correction of the error, because that is what rational thought is always about, correcting error and right thinking.

There is a fundamental difference in how each of these worldviews were developed and a fundamental difference in their resulting models of the universe. The naturalistic scientific model (not the only scientific model) actually started long ago and can be seen in ancient Greece philosophy. The Christian view ought to be wholly developed from the Bible. I mean, isn’t that the claim, that the Bible is sufficient to give use big answers to big questions? Isn’t this a communication from God?

Forgive that little jab, but before you go off with a false view, I am a Christian who believes the Bible, in its original form is without error, and the versions we have today are close enough to that, that is, translated close enough for 99% of people to read and understand as-is without anyone explaining it to them. There are cultural issues that need some explanation, but that is easily handled.

I believe this Christian worldview, i.e. as described above, wholly derived from the Bible is the correct one and answered questions about the universe two to three thousand years before “science” found out they were true.

There can be only one correct view of objective data. However, every Christian and religious denomination and every individual tweaks his or her view a little, and the farther you are from that full set of facts, the correct model, the farther you are from the truth, and the farther away you are from understanding the real universe.

Yes, I believe in the traditional concept of the Trinity, as-is. It is a logical necessity considering the truth of the Bible, and explains man and his complete self, condition, and situation better than any other view of man.

That must raise your interest, and suspicion. . .

This is the first in a series of articles on the Nature of Reality.

I mentioned metaphysics above, but do not thing we will start with some non-verifiable junk thinking about the mystical reality of some spiritist nor the magic of naturalistic science where everything sprung from nothing for no reason and without purpose.

Pop! Magic, it is just here.

No, we are going to look at what we see, when humans experience, and what a reasonable explanation is for the various thing we experience is.

To define what everything is actually, surely, and categorically like we need to start and the very beginning, the very basics of what reality is like, those things we experience at the most basic levels, and that does not necessarily mean it will be hard but I can guarantee that you have not heard these things before because I know no one who has elucidated them previously, and least not in any coherent manner and not in one location.

This is the Nature of Reality.