apriorian apologetics

Apologetics is a meta science, a science of everything. Apologetics does not just bring all fields of research under a single epistemological umbrella; it underwrites the nature of truth and specifies what the purpose of science is.

If there is a truth the truth is universal. Truth is universal or it does not exist. There cannot be truth that does not cover all truth or that is inconsistent, separate from or incompatible with another truth. 

Truth is coherent. It is internally stable and harmonious. There is no contradiction or incompleteness with truth.

This universality of truth is often considered indistinguishable from God. But God is higher than the highest truth, but if there is a God then truth is of one part.

If there is no God, then everything must be from the same source, and this source must be the author of all that is true. The only problem with this scenario of a single origin of all truth, is that only a moral agent can create truth. Without a moral agent only noise and redundancy is produced.

A radio without a producer, produces static. To get information out of a radio broadcast requires a sentient being who understands and can produce encoded signals that can be received and decoded by the recipient.

A meta-science is not possible, if induction is the only path to knowledge. Induction, by its very nature, creates specialities and separates our fields of study. However, deduction implies there is a starting point, an ultimate maxim or postulate that would enable us to deduce every other possible truth.

To have a single, comprehensive and all-encompassing science that embraces and encapsulates all other fields of study, requires a single starting point.

But the search for a starting point or a First Order Principle has been long and fruitless. Yet, we can assume whatever the staring point is, it would serve as God. God is either an axiom or there is no God. The First Principle is either God or there can be no first cause. That is because if there is a central starting point, that would be God and if there is no God, there is no coherent, all-encompassing truth. And if there is no truth, nothing exists. We cannot have existence if we do not have truth.

God is of necessity a first order principle, because God cannot be deduced from a higher principle. There is no greater power than God and that includes postulates or axioms. Fundamental truths cannot be God or higher than God because truth has to have a point of origin and that originator of absolute, fundamental and original truth can only being a sentient being of such power that He can produce truth from nothing.

All things are derived from God, and nothing derives or assumes God, other than God. We expect there to be a First Order Principle because God Exists.

That is, our knowledge of God assumes God has communicated with us.

This is analytically coherent.

God Exists is the only possible starting point analytically, as induction provides no center and deduction must rely on analytical truth, not physical observation. But truth is not intrinsic to nature, this is a facet of information, so the origin of information must be our starting point. The origination of information cannot possibly be any other place than God.

Only God can originate information, there is no other possible source.

The originator of Truth is God and cannot be any other than God, because information does not give rise to God. God gives rise to information, as information is the result of a communication between sentient beings.

The only sentient source of information is God. Therefore, if there is a source of information, as there must be, there is a single point at which science can begin.

God Exists, is therefore, the ultimate truth and the ultimate starting point for any investigation into the world. Without God there is no information and without information, there is no truth.

There is only one possible place to begin the search for truth, at least from an analytical perspective, and that is in the consciousness of man. We must find the source of our truth if there is truth, and that source can only be in the information we are conscious of. Despite the claims of empiricists, we cannot find truth in phenomenology. There is no plausible means of confirmation, in an inductive field. All relative truth is self-referential. 

The intellectual can strive for coherency in his or her ideas and hypothesis, we cannot strive for confirmation of our beliefs, if we are dependent on an external source for the validation. There are no external sources of truth that will validate our ideas, because we cannot inductively prove a physical source of validation is inherently reliable.

There is no empirical test that will demonstrate the hue of eggshell blue is not another color.

The empiricist is therefore at a disadvantage. He or she must test to see if the sun will arrive at the predicted time, or at all. But there is no test that is conclusive, because each day is a new environment. We assume each day will come, but that is not because of induction but because inside we are all aware of analytical truth. We are happy to assume reality is coherent and the patterns we see will persist, regardless of whether we understand them or not.

We cannot even prove if empiricism is a reliable way to determine what is reliable.

Induction, the activity of gathering diverse data to find patterns, cannot occur without deducing there is a pattern and assuming the kinds of data one would need to reveal it. The empirical, inductive enterprise would not be possible, or at least would not be very productive, if analytical truth was not guiding the process from off-stage, as it were.

No number of assertions that metaphysics is inherently flawed will prove anything when the assertion assumes the opposite case is true.

But how can we assume reality is physical when the assumption produces no verifiable benefit? We have eliminated no problems. There is no index that validates the direction in which we are headed. There is no way to determine the direction we are headed, if we are headed in a direction and not just engaged in a directionless expenditure of time and energy.

If there is a truth and this truth comes from God. If we postulate the existence of God, it seems obvious our efforts ought to be directed towards figuring out what God, as the author of truth, is telling us.

If God is God and by definition higher than truth, logic and morality, then what He devises naturally assumes the configuration of what is viewed as being natural and good by us. There is no rational way to ask if God created logic or if what God says is true, because this way of speaking suggests God could have lied or created something that is not true. What God created is true because He spoke it, therefore by definition. A thing is perfect simply because it is the work of his hands.

Because what He communicated to us is truth and makes sense because He said it, what God says has a metaphysical component to it, it has meaning. If we follow the truth, we must arrive at the author of truth. If we seek meaning, we must find it by definition, in the source of meaning. That is why a universal science is not only possible, it is also categorically necessary given that God Exists.

If science is not done holistically; if science is operated ad hoc and piecemeal, how can it represent truth? How can a multidisciplinary approach represent God? Our goal is to be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect. How can we do this if we think in terms of a dozen disconnected boxes?

All Apologetics does is attempt to bring the church together. This is called ecumenics. Apologetics is the activity of ecumenics, and ecumenics requires we remove all those things which divide us. The Bible calls these things evil, but in the common language we understand evil to be free loading.

If we all paid for what we do and get there would be no division, no crime, no war and no need for the state.

All battles are between a freeloader and a producer or between freeloaders.

Truth brings people together and adds value. Parasitism divides people and by necessity is based on lies. Parasites claim we are all in this life together, diversity is strength, no one will be left behind, we must strive for equity, and we all have equal rights.

The only right we have is to what we created and that is because no one has a right to deprive us of what we created.

To discover the truth, we must discover what unites and what divides. We need to measure the value we create and consume and describe the steps taken.

Apologetics looks at economics not as a stand-a-lone enquiry into how money flows through the economy, the economics of apologetics is more interested in how the church is built. The church is justified by producing more value than the state. The church eliminates parasites. 

We have been tricked into thinking all that science does is find propositions that can be validated, consistently. We know that if we mix specific chemicals together in a specific way in specific quantities, a predictable outcome will be observed. And so those who look at chemicals and their interactions are called chemists and the field of study, chemistry. 

But chemistry in this view is parasitic owing nothing to the church nor even to the one who originated chemistry.

Chemistry ought to create value and those who do chemistry ought to be paid for the work they do. This value is defined first by the chemist, then the lab, the field and by the other sectors, in that order. If the field of chemistry does not produce value for the church, then the church has no obligation to fund what is being done.

So, it goes for all fields and activities.

We cannot explain environmentalism, trans-genderism, genocide, abortion or even suicide in evolutionary or secular terms. The hatred of humanity is metaphysical. It requires a meta-narrative that extends beyond the boundaries of naturalistic science.

This meta-narrative of liberalism is the very antithesis of apologetics in its search for perfection. Because to seek truth and meaning is to seek perfection. As this is a gradual process it involves the graduated accomplishment of tasks and steps all of which could be linked to the building up of the church, the culmination of which is the re-formation of Eden.

We have science because we have been ejected from Eden. The discovery of which requires scientific rigor tied to a quantified system of verification. We must build the church in a systematic and progressive way.

Removing parasitic elements and honoring the value we each bring to the table, is a long and at times difficult process, but it must be done if we are to build the church.

The church is a work of faith, it is the fruit of our works. Science is just part of this process. All the work scientists do must be paid according to the value the produce for the church.

The truth, or validity of what science discovers or develops is determined by the needs of the church.