There are two systems of thought or ideologies that reflect two working hypotheses or epistemologies of the nature of knowledge, often discussed in the context of apologetics within Christianity. The One Reality Hypothesis posits a single all-encompassing universe known only through physical senses. Our knowledge and ability to know change depending on whether we perceive the world as physical or metaphysical, leading to discussions about faith and science.
The metaphysical epistemological position known as The Two Reality Hypothesis acknowledges an epistemology containing all logical possibilities but one. The excluded hypothesis is the proposition that the universe is composed of absolute truths, with knowledge based solely on information primarily obtained through communication and what is referred to as deductive reasoning. Logically, there cannot be more than two possible Theories of Knowledge, nor can there be fewer than two.
In the Two Universe model, one universe encompasses all possible ideas and viewpoints, excluding the notion that reality is constructed from logical absolutes. A reality made up of contingent truths is incompatible with one composed of absolute truths, resulting in two different theories of knowledge. This distinction is critical for anyone seeking spiritual maturity, as it informs how we understand the nature of evil and truth.
If there is only one knowable reality, then absolute truth statements are untenable. The One Reality Hypothesis must reject all absolute statements and all metaphysical propositions except those regarding itself. Self-referential statements often take the form of a metaphysical absolute. The assertion that reality is contingent is, in itself, an absolute truth and thus metaphysical in its construction. Yet, we grasp its meaning, even though its construction contradicts the idea that there are no absolute knowable truths. How do we understand absolute constructions if such concepts are devoid of meaning?
The claim that absolute truths are unknowable cannot be deduced from the One Reality Hypothesis, which contradicts its own premise of being all-inclusive. In fact, the One Reality Hypothesis struggles to incorporate its own self-referential statements, as its definition is a metaphysical construct that doesn’t meet the standards it sets for what is knowable.
All true propositions are absolute truths. To claim there is no absolute truth is to assert that no class of propositions exists without at least one exception, which is itself an absolute truth claim. This claim is disallowed by the One Reality Hypothesis. Statements devoid of exceptions contradict the One Reality Hypothesis, which posits a logical impossibility; it asserts a reality devoid of absolute truths while formulating this claim as an absolute. Thus, we conclude that there are two incompatible and logically contradictory Theories of Knowledge pertaining to two distinct realities.
One knowledge system consists of relative statements, ideas, and concepts. The truths of material reality are contingent, probabilistic, and relative, frequently causing doubt about the certainty of propositions.
The alternative Theory of Knowledge or reality construct is one composed of logical truth, explicitly excluding the synthetic statements made by The One Reality Hypothesis, categorizing these claims as lies.
To Summarize:
• The One Reality Hypothesis includes all narratives except the belief in two realities.
• The One Reality Hypothesis (ORH) rejects the claims of the Two Reality Hypothesis (TRH).
• The Two Reality Hypothesis affirms that parts of the ORH exist as lies.
• The TRH posits a false and contradictory reality made up of synthetic statements and a posteriori reasoning, believed in by those who reject God.
• The TRH also asserts the existence of an analytical reality based on logical thought and a priori statements arrived at deductively.
• The TRH embraces metaphysics and logic based on axioms.
• The Two Reality Hypothesis asserts that God exists as a foundational axiom and the most basic analytical claim.
• The two realities must have disparate ideas regarding rights and the exercise of power.
• The TRH posits that labor has natural rights and authority.
• Followers of the ORH believe there is no natural authority or power; positions are determined by competition.
• Proponents of the TRH assert that no one is entitled to what others create.
• No one is entitled to the service of another.
• No one is obligated to anyone else.
• We hold a right only to what we create.
• We have no claim on anything created by others, which would be a compelling topic for a YouTube channel discussing these philosophical divides.