I think I see an aspect of reality that IWantGod has overlooked, but due to time constraints it seems prudent to limit myself to answering questions asked of me. (I have mostly given up hoping for clarification to the objections I have raised in the OP.) To answer his question, "No, rather: To speak of “holistic qualities” appears to be a euphemism to refer to how we (our atomic configurations) interact with those atomic configurations. If material existence is the brute fact – or, to put it another way, without knowledge of God as being responsible for underpinnig it – our descriptions of the world are essentially useful fictions, mental models of reality. Those “qualities” are not immaterial realities, but simply what our brains (i.e. those neural atomic configurations) have stored (i.e. been configured) in response to stimuli.
The bottom line is that it appears to me an atheistic, materialistic understanding of reality is plausible and consistent, with the advantage over Christian faith of explaining suffering. It has the disadvantage, of course, of robbing us of moral absoluteness – but one could talk to great length about apparent benefits and detriments of theism and atheism. The more foundational point for me is that I still lack knowledge that God exists; realizing this, I quickly grow tired this thread’s forcing me to explain my views …
Why does the observation of a wet ground demand explanation, and what does it mean to say that the rain has explained the wet ground?
An explanation is only demanded by a rational agent seeking some goal. For someone late for an appointment, the ground they’re passing being wet or not is irrelevant, and no explanation is needed. So please be careful not to presume that explanations must exist.
Assuming someone is seeking to know the cause of the ground becoming wet, if that is what you mean, an explanation is demanded because, again, there is a rational agent seeking some goal who demands it. Then, the wet ground is considered to be explained when the rational agent has been given enough information to achieve his goal. In this case, if rain explains the wet ground, then it does so because the agent’s goal is to successfully avoid being rained on, and so he knows to prepare an umbrella for the future.
Can someone give an example of a tangible unconditioned reality which can be observed and measured by experiment[?]
Assuming you mean ‘physical’ by the word ‘tangible’, you’d really need to clarify what you mean by an ‘unconditioned reality’. If it is something with no constituent elements, a quark may be such an example. If you mean something that is not affected by any other thing, then I cannot do so.