The Heavens Declare His Handiwork

Previous Page               Next Page

Thomas Lee Abshier, ND

Author, Speaker
Naturopathic Physician

Christian Counselor

Medical Consultations

Marriage Counseling
Seminars, Speaker
Books, Articles
Audio, Video

(503) 255-9500
Portland, Oregon

The fundamental assumption of “The Theory of Absolutes” is that all physical phenomena can be understood as rules of interaction executed by conscious particles, and that these particles follow the laws God has embedded within the particle’s spirit.  

But, given the limitations of the human mind and vision, there may be elements of error in my hypothesis as to the real/true/factual mechanisms by which particles interact.  That is, I may have made an error in my hypotheses and postulates about the mechanisms or rules governing the Conscious Particle’s interactions.  But, even if (when) such errors are uncovered, I believe the concept of the Conscious Particle will stand and prove to be a fertile field upon which to remake the theory into a more accurate nature-representing theory.  

The development of the Theory of Absolutes entailed a comparison of its consistency with a wide range of the data and theory in the natural, social, and spiritual sciences.  The conscious particle thesis came in a moment of inspiration, and resonated in my heart as a true concept, and all other aspects of the theory were based upon this one central seed.  It was this concept alone that allowed me to come to faith.

In the process of development of this Theory, I engaged in a series of iterative hypotheses and modifications of those hypotheses once each of the implications of each hypothesis was explored.  Thus, many models were explored: what particle was fundamental; what were the rules those particles employed so as to manifest all the phenomena in nature?  I examined the particle’s interactions in many, but not all, phenomena such as:

Refraction, pair annihilation, polarized light, wave-particle duality, dual slit interferometry, Michelson-Morley experiment, subatomic particle decay, mass-energy equivalence, Cherenkov radiation, relativistic time contraction, the nature of magnetic force, the quantum energies available to electron orbitals, antenna radiation, and the properties of momentum and inertia.  

Once a suitable model was developed that would satisfy the observed interactions in a particular physical phenomena, I then applied this property to a number of other phenomenon until I found one where it failed.  (Failure was identified by seeing that a hypothesis implied a behavior of particles or fields that contradicted experimental evidence.)  At which point I modified the hypothesized property of the particle to meet the requirements of that experiment, and then applied that new property to all other physical phenomena, again searching for a point of failure.  

When a particle rule created an interaction outcome which clearly contradicted physical experiment, I then modified or discarded that theory, and developed a new model to satisfy that phenomenon where the previous rules had failed.  I would then apply those particle and field interaction rules back through the spectrum of experimental phenomenon, and again repeat this process until the rules of interaction satisfied all the experiments that I could consider.

It was through many years of rewriting, reformulating, and making new hypotheses that the Theory has evolved as it is seen in this work.  Given the number of iterations and modifications, it is unlikely that this particular version is without error.  Thus, I find myself pondering where I should place my stake and challenge all to consider its postulates.  Obviously at this point you are reading this document and I have either become frustrated and wish someone else to carry the torch on from here, or it is adequate to incorporate as provisionally valid theory that reflects God’s reality.

Again, I believe the conscious-particle hypothesis will stand the test of time.  I believe it will prove to be enduring and useful as the guiding concept that explains the why and how of every force-distance interaction.  My theories about space, matter, energy, or time may be proven inconsistent with experiment, self-contradictory, or limited.  Nevertheless, I urge the Christian philosopher of the future to use new experimental data and the entire body of all scientific knowledge to rework this theory.  

I have found that metaphors are useful in making new hypothetical conjectures.  I look at the experimental phenomenon in question, and see how it is similar to other physical, mental, emotional, and/or spiritual phenomena.  I find that examining other similar systems may give insight as to how a particular system functions.

Again, “The Conscious Particle” principle is the only concept that I wish to declare as primary and correct.  All other mechanisms, theories, postulates, and hypotheses presented in this book are tentative propositions.  Other theorists and natural science philosophers may now examine these proposed rules and mechanisms by which the conscious particles interact.  I present them as my initial offering for consideration.  

The existence of a body of rules by which conscious particles interact, which is consistent with the observed phenomenon of nature, gives evidence to the accuracy of the conscious particle theory.  And conversely, the existence of a holistic theory that unifies the whole of disparate phenomena seen in life, spirit, and nature is an inductive validation of the underlying assumption of the foundational particles from which all phenomena spring.  

The existence of the Conscious Particle is by extension a step along the path toward creating a theoretical connection between nature and God.  The existence of a self-consistent mechanism by which He may have created the physical universe provides a logical foothold upon which to anchor faith in reality.  And a firm understanding of the nature of the universe in which we live gives us a significant standard by which we can begin to understand the meaning of our lives and the accuracy of our choice of individual and social standards of conduct.

The Theory of Absolutes as presented does not prove God’s existence, or the way that He created it.  No experiment or logic can finally and authoritatively prove the existence of God.  Only direct perception from an Absolute Frame is “proof”.  But, such a perspective is unavailable to the human soul in our limited and flesh-bound frame.  Thus, God can only be known by faith.  Such is the way that He created it, and it shall continue to be that way until He reveals Himself to our direct experience, spirit to spirit without veil or intermediary.