| 1 | No philosophy may be considered a Science unless it is able to provide a plausible contribution to the origin, evolution and function of the universe, |
| 2 | As information without context can never be considered knowledge. |
| 3 | Similarly, no philosophy may be rightly called a Religion unless it demonstrates a comprehensive model defining the universe, its laws and its function and purpose, |
| 4 | As no philosophy of the Divine that claims any authority of the Divine can be from the Divine, |
| 5 | Unless it can clearly demonstrate the truth of knowledge of mind, nature and purpose of the Divine. |
| 6 | This is therefore the standard since the beginning of civilization by which Philosophy defines Cosmology: |
| 7 | That no Philosophy may be properly considered a Theology unless it can demonstrate a clear and concise Cosmology, |
| 8 | And no Philosophy be a Religion unless is possesses a clear Theology. |
| 9 | Thus, the study of the universe is known as cosmologia, from the Ancient Greek words kosmos meaning “world” and –logia meaning the “study of”. |
| 10 | That is why any Philosophy that is capable of providing the most comprehensive, consistent and detailed account of the universe should rightly be considered superior to all others, |
| 11 | Not only in respect to Science but also in respect to Theology and Religion, |
| 12 | And a Philosophy that is inconsistent, or contradictory or absurd in its assertions can never be considered a reasonable Cosmology. |
| 13 | So when we seek to investigate what is or what is not a reasonable and valid Cosmology, we may use the skills of logic and reason and mind: |
| 14 | For example, a theory that defines the process and evolution of creation of the Universe in terms of some time-space-matter event is on its own insufficient to be considered a proper Cosmology. |
| 15 | This is because a proper Cosmology must define not only the events of creation but the origin of creation and motive for creation. Otherwise, such theories, no matter how complex or respected remain only parts of an incomplete picture. |
| 16 | Therefore, theories such as Big Bang or Multiverses are not Cosmologies and any subsequent theories relying upon them cannot possibly be considered scientific until a complete and cohesive Cosmology is produced to support it. |
| 17 | Similarly, religious theories of the Universe being created within certain time constraints such as seven days is not a proper Cosmology, |
| 18 | As the concept fails to demonstrate logic, relation, completeness as well as address the paradox of origin of Creation as well as motive for the event. |
| 19 | Therefore, any philosophy based on such inadequate and incomplete theories cannot possibly be considered a Cosmology and therefore a proper Religion. |
| 20 | Indeed, an arrangement of texts, no matter how old, nor how revered, that is neither plausible nor wise cannot possibly be valid; and |
| 21 | A story that gives no insight to deep revelation nor motive to creation can never be considered a credible Cosmology; and |
| 22 | Any theory that leaves the most important questions of existence to randomness or silence is so absurd as to discredit all who claim such as science. |
| 23 | How then might we proceed if the true existence of Philosophies possessing a valid Cosmology are so rare? |
| 24 | The answer is in knowing the true nature of a valid Cosmology, versus what is not: |
| 25 | First, a valid Cosmology must clearly define a complete model of the universe, the laws of the universe, all relations between matter and rules, levels of matter and the function and purpose of the universe; and |
| 26 | Second, a valid Cosmology must provide a central and foundational set of arguments concerning Divine Existence, Divine Nature and Divine Mind (or Purpose) in support of the Theological Cosmology as proof; and |
| 27 | Third, a valid Cosmology in support of a true Theology must demonstrate one or more bodies of sacred texts, sourced from Divine Revelation that supports the scientific model; and |
| 28 | Finally, a valid Cosmology in support of a true Theology must associate seamlessly with one or more bodies of canons of law based upon such fundamental theological arguments and sacred text reference whereby certain norms, standards and maxims of law are asserted. |
| 29 | Therefore, such knowledge provides us a benchmark by which to start to determine philosophies that adequately meet the definition and those that fail. |
| 30 | As to the most comprehensive, consistent and complete Cosmology, Summa Elementis Theologica recognizes one above all others entitled “the Ucadia Model” defined in seven patents: |
| 31 | The first patent is called the “Ucadia Classification System” as a unique system to enable the most efficient identification and classification system of theoretical and real world objects and concepts; and |
| 32 | The second patent is called the “Ucadia Symbols System” as a unique system for the symbolic representation of theoretical and real world objects and concepts; and |
| 33 | The third patent is called the “Ucadia Semantic Classification System” as a unique system for the semantic classification of common languages into a universally consistent structure of meaning using the Ucadia Classification System and Ucadia Symbols System; and |
| 34 | The fourth patent is called the “Ucadia Standard Model of Universal Elements” as a unique system for the classification and symbolic representation of theoretical and real world objects as elements of a standard model of universal elements; and |
| 35 | The fifth patent is called the “Ucadia Hydro-Helio Model of Atomic Elements” as a unique system for the standard identification, classification and symbolic representation of atomic elements and their properties; and |
| 36 | The sixth patent is called the “EIKOS Language System” as a unique language system to define and describe the relationships, properties and measurement of all elements in operation from the Ucadia Standard Model of Universal Elements and the Ucadia Hydro-Helio Model of Atomic Elements; and |
| 37 | The seventh patent is called the “UCA Model” as a unique model of 360 primary sets of axiom to define and describe laws governing all elements in operation from the Ucadia Standard Model of Universal Elements and the Ucadia Hydro-Helio Model of Atomic Elements. |
| 38 | Thus, when Summa Elementis Theologica speaks of meaning and symbols and knowledge of Cosmology, its source and presumptions are clear. |
| 39 | Furthermore, before one can truly appreciate the words expressed in Summa Elementis Theologica, |
| 40 | The seven patents of Ucadia must first be read and reviewed and comprehended. |
| 41 | Finally, unless one presents a superior, a more comprehensive and consistent model than Ucadia, |
| 42 | The Philosophy and Cosmology of Ucadia and Summa Elementis Theologica stands as superior against all other claims. |
Search Texts
Download book as a pdf
2 Scientia Sacra - Sacred Science