DEFINITION OF TRANSTHEISM EXPLAINED

In this paper I am going to break down the definition of Transtheism that I have been using for some time now.  I hope that this will give others a deeper understanding of what Transtheism is and its potential in the realm of religious philosophy.    

Transtheism: An objective pragmatic belief in the possibilities of Divinity with Nature, as a starting points of objective faith.

Transtheism: Objective belief.

An objective belief can merely assume or acknowledge the possibility or probability of a belief, but neither completely asserts nor rejects the complete correctness of a belief, which means freedom to participate in other belief but not clinging to a single subjective belief. However it does not exclude a person from having subjective beliefs about a topic. A subjective belief assert the complete correctness of a belief were as objective belief can assert the possible or probable correctness of a belief to some degree.

Objectivity about a belief allows a person a degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change their belief for different reasons. This is important because a belief is an accepted or assumed mode of thought which influences the mind and its actions. This places a person in control of their beliefs as objective tools rather than being a tool of subjective belief.  Theism and Atheism are subjective beliefs, Transtheism as an objectivity belief is categorically different and is not a Theism or Atheism.

Transtheism: Pragmatic belief.

Sense a belief can influence the mind and its actions; there should be a method to test the truth value of a belief. A pragmatic belief asserts the correctness of a belief is found by the practical consequences of that belief. That is how it affects the function of thoughts in guiding our actions in relationship to reality. What actions or practices will have to be engage in by the accepting a belief. And that the conceptions of beliefs should be sourced in practical effects, which are perceptions and experiences from reality.

Pragmatism is not a necessary part of the definition; it is the method for validation that I have chosen for myself. However on an individual level objective beliefs, I think should be practical (pragmatic) tools before being used for ideal or theoretical purposes.  

Transtheism: Belief in the possibilities of Divinity with Nature.

Here is the core meaning of Transtheism. Divinity is the possibility or potentiality of being and becoming a greater reality. A positive belief in the potentialities of Divinity, Transtheism does not focus on the actuality of gods as theism’s do because the divine actualities of gods, creatures and Nature are only the consequence of the possibilities or potentialities of Divinity. Transtheism moves beyond theism, atheism and agnosticism in the positive belief that the possibilities of Divinity can always occur but not wholly in one actual thing. The positive possibility of Divinity is the eternal and indefinite possibilities of Divinity that no actualities can ever completely be, but divinity can always occur in them.

Transtheism: As starting points of objective faith.

All one has to do to be a Transtheist is to acknowledge that Divinity is a possibility.  Faith in Divinity does not rest on the existence or non-existence of gods or deities, but on the mere possibility of divinity in them or one’s self. If one finds divine things such as humans, gods, supernatural beings, spirits, and even other things in Nature or Nature itself.  All these are starting points for objective faith in the higher or other possibilities or potentialities of Divinity. It is faith in the principle or idea of Divinity that transcends the things or beings which manifest it and is immanent through them, but is a self-existent law beyond them with Nature.

Transtheism moves beyond theism, atheism and agnosticism in a positive objective faith that Divinity is more than about the existence or non-existence of gods and deities. As such any kind of theist, atheist or agnostic can be a Transtheist simple by acknowledging the possibility or potentiality of divinity is with themselves or others. At that point divinity can be perceived or experienced as something actual with or without a belief in theism, atheism or agnosticism or the existence or non-existence of gods and deities.

To sum it up, Transtheism is belief in Divinity not the beings or things that manifest it.

Objective: Involving or derived from sense perception or experience with actual objects, conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data><objective belief>. (Modified from Merriam-Webster 11^th Collegiate Dictionary)

Pragmatic: Allow any flight of imagination provided this imagination ultimately alights upon a possible practical effect. (Peirce 1992-94, vol. II, p. 235) 

Belief: A belief is an accepted mode of thought which influences the mind and its actions. (C.S. Peirce) A state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing. (Merriam-Webster 11^th Collegiate Dictionary)

Divinity: The possibility or potentiality of being and becoming a greater reality. (J.K. Owens Sr.) The quality or state of being divine. (Merriam-Webster 11^th Collegiate Dictionary)

Possible: Being something that may or may not occur, be true or actual. (Modified from Merriam-Webster 11^th Collegiate Dictionary) A possibility is not known to be false. (C.S. Peirce)

Faith: Something that is believed especially with strong conviction. (Merriam-Webster 11^th Collegiate Dictionary)

NATURAL METAPHISICS

NATURAL METAPHISICS  

(still working on it)

Natural metaphysics is about the essence of possibilities as the qualities of nature.  In this sense possibility is understood “as something that is able to be a quality as a mode of reality”. I list six possibilities from mere maybe to summation. The view I take here is that Reality is literally more or less possibility as differing qualities of reality.  A quality is what makes something such that it is.

1.       A neutral possibility is what “may or may not be”. This is probably the most accepted and fundamental understanding of the idea of possibility as a mere maybe or maybe not quality of reality.

2.       An ephemeral possibility is what “can sometimes be”.  The idea behind this kind of possibility is that something can sometimes be but there is a limit or window of opportunity for which it can be. For example as long as X exists, Y is a possibility. That is Y is able to be a quality of reality so long as X exists.  However X may not always be able to bring about Y, so there is a limited window of opportunity. 

3.       An erratic possibility is what “can be”. This possibility is conditional in that so long as the right conditions are available this can be a quality of reality. For example X and Z form the possible conditions that Y can be a quality of reality. 

4.       A consistent possibility is what “can always be”. This is a general possibility in that it is an eternal possibility. It is always able to be a quality in reality because it is derived from a general possibility of reality itself. Example X-ness is the consistent possible condition of reality without which a X would not be what it is.  

5.       An actual possibility is what “continues to be”.  

6.       A sum of possibility is what “a unity in diversity of being is”.

A possible universe:

In a possible universe the consistent possibility of reaction between existent things, is an intangible quality of its reality. When objects react with each other this is a tangible occurrence but this does not change the consistent possibility for reaction between existent things. So long as things exist, reaction is a consistent possibility, before, during and after the reaction between existent things. The reaction between exist things is what can always be.

 Let’s say there is an object Z in this universe, so long as Z exist there are possibilities that can sometimes be because Z exist. these are erratic possibilities. So long as Z exists these possibilities exist as intangibles. They changes with changes in Z and they become tangible only through Z.  Z has its own form; this is the tangible occurrence of an own erratic possibility of Z’s. Z’s form may or may not change in different way but the possibility of other forms can sometimes be.

The relationship between the universe, Z and other existent things is the neutral possibilities of what may or may not be as intangible qualities. When these intangibles become tangible they change the possibilities of what may or may not be.  

A natural metaphysical method about the intangible qualities of nature I will call  it speculative pragmatics.

Pragmatic Maxim: Allow any flight of imagination provided this imagination ultimately alights upon a possible practical effect. (Peirce 1992-94, vol. II, p. 235).

Pragmatic Being: A sum of possible qualities will constitute a being.

                In order to ascertain the intellectual conception of a being one should consider what possible practical qualities might conceivably result in the reality of that conception; and the sum of these possible qualities will constitute the entire being of the intellectual conception.

Pragmatic Meaning: A sum of probable reactions will constitute a meaning.

                In order to ascertain the meaning of an intellectual conception one should consider what probable practical consequences might conceivably result by necessity from the truth of that conception; and the sum of these consequences will constitute the entire meaning of the conception.   

Pragmatic Identity: A sum of antecedent principles will constitute an identity.  

                In order to ascertain the identity of an intellectual conception one should consider what   practical antecedent principles might conceivably necessitate the controlling principals of that conception; and the sum of those principles will constitute the entire identity of that conception.

NEW BOOK ON TRANSTHEISM

Chapter 1

The Fallacy of Misplaced Deity

Does God exist? Yes, no or other. Or does ___ exist? Yes, no or other. We should have an idea of what god is before we can answer the question. 

Defining God with a definition that all can agree to is the first problem. I will use this definition; God or god(s) is whatever you think God or god(s) is with the same basic certainty of reality as other things in a category you place God or god(s) in, existence, non-existence or other.  Hopefully you agree with whatever you think God or god(s) is but now you must provide the same basic certainty of reality as other things in a category you have identified God or god(s) with, that is existence, non-existence or other. Until you provide that same basic certainty of reality as other things in a category you will be committing a categorical fallacy, no matter what you think God or god(s) is by faith or otherwise. 

The Fallacy of Misplaced Deity is the error of applying an improper category of reality to Deity, which I have called the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity. Examples: Theists want to place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of things that are existent and Atheists want to place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of things that are non-existent or still others who would place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of things that are impossible. It is not possible to place God or god(s) in these categories with the same basic certainty of the things already in those categories; ergo to place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of the existent or non-existent or impossible things is the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity. However it would not be a fallacy to place God or god(s) in the categorical reality of things that are possible or in the categorical reality of things that are an alternate reality, because it can be done with the same basic certainty as the things already in those categories.

Committing or not committing the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity:

     1.       God exist, no God exist or God is impossibility:

a.       God has not been defined as an exist thing, on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of existent things. For example; plans, trains, automobiles, living being, thoughts, emotions and the earth are defined as existent things but God has no definition in the same way as these things. That is there is no definition of God that is supported by an identifiable thing that indicates that it’s an existent God. Because what God is, is not definable in this way, it is then the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity to define God or god(s) as an existing thing.

b.      God has not been defined as a non-exist thing, on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of non-existent things. For example; fictional thing and beings, destroyed things and dead beings are non-existent things but God has no definition in the same way as these non-existent things. That is there is no definition of God that is supported by an identifiable non-existent thing which indicates that it’s a non-existent God. Because what God is, is not definable in this way, it is then the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity to define God or god(s) as a non-existing thing.

c.       God has not been defined as an impossible thing, on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of impossible things. For example; things or beings that have contradictory definition; squire circle, rectangle oval, no-house house, something being what it is not, but God has no definition in the same way as these impossible things. That is there is no definition of God that is supported by an identifiable impossible thing that indicates that it’s an impossible God. Because what God is, is not definable in this way, it is then the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity to define God or god(s) as an impossible thing.

d.      To define and say that God exist, no God exist or God is an impossibility has fallen short of meeting the same basic level of certainty as other things in the categories of existent, non-existent and impossible thing in three ways; 1. God or god(s) have not been identified as something in our reality that corresponds to a definition in any of the three categories, 2. God or god(s) have not been identified as something that is consistent with the reality of other things defined in the three categories and  3. God or god(s) have not been identified as something that can be satisfactorily defined within any of the three categories.

  2. God is a possibility or God and alternate reality:

a.       God can be defined as a possible thing, on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of possible things. For example; possible; plans, trains, automobiles, living beings or other realities are in the category of possible by default just as God or gods can be possible by default, , until they are found to be identifiable in some other category.

 d.      As a sub-category of possibility, God may be partially defined as an alternate reality, on the same basic level of certainty as other things in the category of alternate reality. Alternate reality in the sense that it nether exists nor is non-existent but is a type of reality none the less. Examples; Laws that express the way Reality works, universal qualities as permanent possibilities for things in our reality such as coldness, hotness or redness (as determined my the nature of Reality)and godliness as a possible.  

 

CHAPTER 2
What is Transtheism

A simple comparison can illustrate the difference between the positions:

Theism can only be true if gods exist. 

Atheism can only be true if gods do not exist. 

Transtheism can be true if gods exist or not.

Definitions of Transtheism: 

Simply defined, Transtheism is the belief that there is reality and truth whether Divine beings [God, gods...] exist or not.  

Specifically defined, Transtheism is belief in a system of thought, philosophical, religious, or spiritual, that can be held with or without a belief in Divine beings [God, gods...] .

Broadly defined, Transtheism is a system of thought, philosophical, religious, or spiritual, which neither is theism, atheism, Gnosticism, nor agnosticism but is a position of belief whereby the reality of Divine beings [God, gods...] is a mystery that is circumvented or transcended in some way.

 

I.                    Transtheism in its rejection of theism and atheism.

As to the question of gods’ existence, whereas theist say god(s) exists and atheist say god(s) does not exist, either position commits the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity, that is the error of applying an improper categorical reality to gods; Transtheists follow other answers to this question, Since theist cannot guarantee that it is correct that gods exit as other things that do exist nor can atheist guarantee that it is correct that gods do not exist as other such things that do not exist ; This points to the fundamental fact that the existence or non-existence of gods is a mystery. Transtheism  avoids the pit falls of theism and atheism by an affirmative response to divine reality itself whether gods exist or not . They accept the mystery of any god like existence as a fundamental fact within the reality of divinity and then by acknowledging the factual uncertainty of the terms existence or nonexistence to describe a god like state which can be taken as grounds enough to reject the "certainty" of theism and atheism.  

Beyond the rejection of theism and atheism (and to a lesser extent Gnosticism and agnosticism), the Transtheist then must respond to the question of god's reality beyond the terms of existence or non-existence and the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity with an alternative responses or a third proposition.

1.       The Transtheist hard response is to reject completely existence and nonexistence as reliable terms for describing god's reality and propose another term, condition or reality as a third proposition.  Some examples:   

      The 9th century Catholic theologian and philosopher, John Scotus Eriugena, Rather than a binary classification of things into existence and non-existence, he uses a trinary classification into super-existence, existence and non-existence.  God transcends existence and nonexistence and is the super-existent.

      The philosopher/theologian Paul Tillich stated in his Systematic Theology that "God does not exist. He is being itself beyond essence and existence. Therefore to argue that God exists is to deny him"(205).  God is “the ground of all being” and the transcendent source of existence or nonexistence. 

      The Cappadocian Fathers of the 4th century said that they believed in God, but they did not believe that God exists. God is beyond existing or not existing: these "relative" terms have no meaning where the absolute is concerned. 

      Bishop Kallistos (Eastern Orthodox Church): "God is absolutely transcendent. ‘No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature or nearness to it” (Gregory Palamas, PG 150, 1176C).

2.       The Transtheist soft response is to neither completely reject nor accept the terms existence and nonexistence as describing god's reality, which proposes a kind of neutrality as a third proposition.  Some examples: 

     Confucius neither asserted nor rejected divine beings, but finds that the supreme principle in the universe according to Confucius is the moral law, a universal principle, omnipresent, hidden and eternal.  Following the moral principles means to conform oneself to the will of heaven, but metaphysical speculations about heaven and the afterlife is unimportant. 

     Taoism: The Tao is the single mysterious source of all reality, it is not a God but deities and all nature is within its control. Taoist may or may not have deities, but their core teachings are centered on the Tao of nature not deities. 

     Buddhism: The existence of deities is neither completely accepted nor denied and the question is viewed as unimportant to the core beliefs of Buddhism. Also Buddha refused to take any position on creation by deities or otherwise. All of existence is impermanence, which  includes deities if they exist.

        Stoicism: All things change. The Cosmos and gods all end in the purifying fire of the Logos (eternal reason) but then are reborn again and again... Logos as the seminal reason of creation is the source of the cosmos and gods, in this sense the Logos is not so much "God" as it is the single source of relational reality that transcends deity by being their source also.

3.       The Transtheist moderate response is to accept the possibility of a God or gods as a principle of reality but not as necessarily an existent or non-existent thing, which points at the ideal or metaphorical realities of a God or gods as a third proposition.  Some examples: 

     Plato: Deity is a perfect ideal or archetype  that exists with all others in the world of forms as a separate unchanging eternal perfect reality, which is separate from our temporal changing physical imperfect existence.  Ideals, such as God or gods, truth, beauty, goodness and so on have their own eternal reality and our temporal physical existence is just imperfect copy’s created by a Demiurge (a subordinate "deity" or creative force) from per-existing formless material. The gods, if any exist in our universe would be created by the subordinate Demiurge. 

     Epicurus: The gods if they exist have no concern for us and are willingly unaware of our existence; they live eternally in the space between the cosmos’s, in a state of divine reality and bliss. The gods function mainly as ethical ideals or projections of what the most blessed life would be. The universe (or more accurately a single multiverse) has no beginning, but has always existed, and will always exist; the multiverse is composed of cosmos’s and space. Our particular cosmos, however, is only a temporary agglomeration of atoms, and it is only one of an infinite number of such cosmos’s, which come into existence and then dissolve away over and over, in the infinite space of the multiverse. Everything we do is for the sake, ultimately of gaining pleasure for ourselves as the highest good or happiness. 

     Aristotle: The cosmos (our universe) has no beginning or ending, but is bond by space and time. God's reality is beyond space and time and the cosmos, God does not have a body or physical shape, but is the cause of all motion or change in the cosmos. Because the cosmos is attracted to the unmovable reality [God], God does not actively cause anything to happen (motion and change) in the cosmos nor does God care about the cosmos. Everything in the cosmos has a natural function, which is its purpose. All things are guide by this purpose or Telos.

4.       The Transtheist ignostic response is that existence and nonexistence are unsupportable and meaningless description of a God or gods reality, which points at the indefinite reality of a God or gods as a third proposition. Some examples: 

     From the Theopedia "Negative theology, also known as Apophatic theology, is a theological approach that describes God by negation, speaking of God only in terms of what He is not (apophasis) rather than presuming to describe what God is. In negative theology, it is maintained that we can never truly define God in words. In the end, the student must transcend words to understand the nature of the Divine. In this sense, negative theology is not a denial. Rather, it is an assertion that whatever the Divine may be, when we attempt to capture it in human words, we will inevitably fall short (http://www.theopedia.com/Negative_theology)."      

     Augustine's famous phrase from De Trinitate: “We can know what God is not, but we cannot know what he is”. 

     The Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas (Western Catholic Church):”In this life what God is is unknown to us [even] by the revelation of grace; and so [by grace] we are joined to him as to something unknown.”

5.       The Transtheist eclectic response is that there is nothing coherently committing anyone to the terms existence and nonexistence or other descriptions of a God or gods, this points to our freedom at any time to select what appears to be best in various doctrines, concepts or perceptions but not to be committed completely to our selection, belief then is tentative and objective as the third proposition. Some examples: 

     Jainism: Rejects the idea of any creator, mentor or destroyer deity of reality, reality has always been and will always be. The quality, state or consciousness of godliness ( or divinity) is only one in nature.  Any number of beings can take part in the general quality of godliness and beyond. Jainism in a sense is polytheism, monotheism, non-theism and atheism and is none of them completely. The existence of deities is transcended by moksha a non-theistic world system above deity or godliness, when deities transcend to moksha they are no longer deities.  Sense human can become deities they can become part of moksha. The belief in gods is displaced by a belief in the possibility of oneself becoming a divine, a god and beyond. 

     Unitarian Universalism: "Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder, affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of the spirit and an openness to the forces which create and uphold life. Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion, and the transforming power of love. Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our ethical and spiritual life..."(http://www.uua.org/beliefs/welcome/inspiration/index.shtml)

6.       Divine Transtheist response is that divinity is a reality and the existence or non-existence of Deity or gods is a mystery within that reality. It is not completely true to say that God or gods do or do not exist because we do not know if ether proposition is completely true. Divine Transtheism rejects the certainty of Theism's and Atheism's propositions about existence or non-existence but accepts the reality of divinity and its mysteries; it is then the divine reality with its mysteries that is the third proposition. Some examples: 

     Immanuel Kant: From Kant’s point of view scientifically speaking, the existence of absolutely necessary God can be neither proved nor disproved, not even with ontological, cosmological or teleological rational or theological arguments. For Kent this left room for any moral proofs that may present themselves to us, apart from science. We then may assume on moral grounds the reality of God or gods (because of the possibility within divinity) but the physical existence of gods is beyond Science and relational or theological arguments and is a mystery in that regards. God's reality on the other hand is manifest in morality and Kent argues that there is a moral proof of God's reality. i. It is rationally and morally necessary to attain the perfect good (happiness arising out of complete virtue). ii. What we are obliged to attain, it must be possible for us to attain. iii. Attaining the perfect good is only possible if natural order and causality are part of an overarching moral order and causality. iv. Moral order and causality are only possible if we postulate a God as their source. (See Kant 1996/1962, 240; 5/124-5)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/#BasArgExeKan.

        C. S. Peirce in a paper called A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God (1908) he does not argue for the actual existence of god, but for the reality of God as a necessary being, which is "infinitely incomprehensible". The hypothesis of God is inevitably formulated by anyone who engages in spontaneous reflective thought or musing about what is possible in the universe as regulated by the necessary (physical laws are necessary realities of the universe) in relationship to the existent physical universe. God  hypothesized in such away is a necessary mediating reality between what is possible and what physically existent in the universe. God does not require physical existence but is a mediating necessary reality none the less. See  http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/A_Neglected_Argument_for_the_Reality_of_God

      Mysticism is when one experience’s divinity directly. It can have a theistic or transtheistic sensation too it. Either way it is primarily the experience of what divinity is, as experienced by an individual. Transtheistic (or non-theistic) mysticism does not require a belief in the existence of God or gods to experience divinity but can best be thought of as a wide range of practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation and the experience of divine reality for the individual.See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mysticism/

 

Summary: Transtheism is the belief that there is reality and truth whether Divine beings [God, gods...] exist or not.   This is a powerful concept and definition in that there is no need to validate a belief or a system of belief based on the existence or non-existence of a God or god(s). But as it relates to the a fore stated six position of Transtheism, I would like to briefly frame them each in the light of this definition; Hard Transtheism posits a necessary  or eternal reality (the Absolute, ground of being, super-existence...) beyond the limitations of existing or not existing. As such this type of reality would be there with or without a god. Soft Transtheism posits our reality to have permanent or eternal properties that exist (moral Law, Tao, realty itself being impermanent, Logos...). These permanent or eternal properties are the governing principles of all reality with or without a God or gods. Moderate Transtheism posits a standard or natural purpose for reality to advance towards (perfect form, Telos, ultimate happiness...). This process will continue with or without a God or gods existing. Ignostic Transtheism posits that we are ignorant (lacking positive knowledge) and unable to express the true reality of God or gods in words alone, even if they exist or not. Eclectic Transtheism posits that freedom is true and something we possess and that belief should be tentative and objective about God or gods if they exist or not. Divine Transtheism posits divinity is an essential part of our reality that we can take part in with or without gods. Briefly the six positions support the belief that there is reality and truth whether Divine beings [God, gods...] exist or not, in three ways:

1. That there is eternal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
2.That there is temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.

3. That there is caprice and continuity in and between the eternal and temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.  

 

II. Theism verses Transtheism: The main focus will be on the Transtheist response.

1.       Theism verses DivineTranstheism:

     i. Core dilemma:  If we have to choose between believing in Theism or Transtheism then there must be a core dilemma to resolve, which is “Believe in the existence of gods as being primary (Theism) or believe in the reality of Divinity as being primary (Transtheism)”. Stated a bit clearer, believe in the existence of gods and thereby account for the reality of divinity, which is the theist position. Or believe in the reality of Divinity [as a necessary principle of reality] and account for the occurrence of divine things (such as persons, places, things, ideas and gods), which is the transtheist position. Or we can even put it in the form of a question “Are gods the source of divinity or is Divinity the source of gods?”

     ii. Major terms: The common understanding of reality is that of a broader term that encompasses existence. Also Divinity is a broader term which encompasses gods. Further, reality or divinity are not strictly synonymous with existence or gods respectively because existence is encompassed by the broader terms reality and gods is encompassed by the broader term divinity. The transtheist position has a stronger appeal when the normal relationship of these words is maintained. However the theist position gains appeal when reality or divinity become more or less synonymous with existence or gods respectively.

     iii. A resolution: As a transtheist I propose this formula as a resolution “There is no God or gods without divinity and there can be divine things with or without a God or gods.” This formula answers the dilemma and is in agreement with the common understanding, meaning and relationship of the major terms.

The first half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the following ways:

    Conceptually gods are divine and non-divine beings or things are not gods, divinity is necessary for godliness.

     The mere possibility of gods existing implies the reality of divinity in principle and is the reason for there being a possibility for gods.

     The possibility of gods coming into existence, makes explicit the prior reality of divinity in principle and their potentiality as the reason that gods are able to come into existence.

     The reality of divinity does not depend on the existence of gods because it is easily ether a reality prior too or simultaneous with gods and is a reality upon which gods depend.

The second half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the following ways:

     Believing in the existence of gods is equivalent to accepting the reality of divinity but accepting the reality of divinity is not equivalent to believing in the existence of gods, because the concept of divinity encompasses the concept of gods and other divine things but the concept of gods is limited to God or gods only.

     Divine realities can be believed in, with or without the existence of gods because a God or gods existence or non-existence is not required to accomplish a belief in divinity.

     Divine reality does not prove that there is or is not gods but only the possibility of a  God or gods, because it is a mystery within the reality of the divine potential as to the degree and the possibility of attainability.

     2. Theism verse Hard Transtheism:

i. The core dilemma: The core dilemma is “Believe in the existence of God or gods (Theism) or Believe in the alternate-existence of God or gods (Transtheism)” or put another way believe that gods exist fundamentally the same way we do or believe gods exist in fundamentally different ways from ours. As a question “Are gods an existent or alternate-existent type of being?”

ii. Major terms: Existence in general means to have an identifiable presence within our universe. Alternate-existence would then generally mean to have an identifiable absence within our universe. Non-existence would then generally mean to have no identifiable presence and no identifiable absence within our universe. For example: I wake up in a hospital (with some memory loss) and am conscience of my own presence (existence) and the hospital room. I then notice that I have a wedding ring on my finger which indicates the absence of my mate in the room and the possibility that there can be a mate (alternate-existence).  The doctor enters the room and tells me it is Wednesday-Sunday and asks how I am feeling?  To which I reply; Wednesday-Sunday is a non-existent day and is not a possibility (non-existence), I remember the days of the week now and I am feeling somewhat better.

iii. A resolution: I propose a simple logical starting point:

          We exist.

          We may not exist within god's presence.

          Therefore god may be absent. 

     Likewise; 

          We exist.

          We may exist within god's presence.

          Therefore god may be absent.

Something which may be present is generally considered absent until its presence is identified, therefore gods may be absent is a correct conclusion. Because the same conclusion of absence is reached ether way when considering the possible presence of god, the proposition that gods exist or are non-existent can be ruled out in favor of gods are absent, in the context of the above logical statements. Since the stronger position is that gods are absent and connected with a universal experience of gods being absent in the life of all human individuals (at least perceptual in their early youth), I may infer that gods have an alternate-existence, which results in their absence in our reality. This is a consistent reason why gods are absent with a possibility of being present. Hard Transtheist my reach the alternate-existence or alternate-reality in different ways but the absence of gods in our reality to some degree or another is a common theme and the identifiable marker of god's absence such as divinity in our reality, just like in the above example of a wedding ring (divinity) on my finger indicates the absence of my mate in the room or the possibility that there can be a mate, those who experience divinity have an indicator of god like absence or god's possible alternate-existence.
     

     3.     Theism verse Soft Transtheism:

i. The Core dilemma: Believe in the existence of God or gods being true or believe in the plausibility of a God or gods existence. Or believe that a God or gods existence is somehow a permanent present part of our reality, or believe a God or gods existence is a permanent possibility of our reality. As a question “Should we believe that gods actually exists or should we believe in the potential  for gods to exist?

ii. Major terms: Subjective belief is something personally accepted as being true. Objective belief is accepting the plausibility of something being true.  Theism is the subjective belief that the existence of God is true and a fact of our reality. Soft Transtheism is the objective belief that the existence of God is plausible with the possible of being a fact of our reality.   

iii. A resolution: From a Soft Transtheist position I would propose that objective belief is superior to subjective belief on the question of a God or gods existing for the follow reasons.

     Objective belief is superior because it precedes or is the source of subjective belief, that is to say before we can believe something subjectively we must believe it objectively first.  Because something must appear worthy of belief (for whatever reasons) before it can be believed to be true. The moment we believe something is plausible (having the possibility of being true or worthy of belief) this is objective belief and then may be transformed into subjective belief.

     Objective belief is superior because it is more comprehensive in that it is the genus to species of beliefs (transtheism, theism, atheism…). Objectivity about a belief allows a person a degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change their belief for different reasons, which is freedom to believe whatever they choose and to change whenever they choose.  In essence objective belief nether completely accepts or rejects competing worthy beliefs, however a person my favor one belief over others.  

      Objective belief is superior in its qualities. I have presented four qualities of objective belief already in the above description; source, comprehensiveness, freedom and change. To this list can be added truth. The kind of truth that objective belief proposes is possible or probable truth about God’s existence. Subjective belief proposes assumed factual truth about God's existence. Both views are less than a provable fact beyond any reasonable doubt but which is closer to being factual?   Subjective belief only assumes it is true and factual that gods exist whereas objective belief observes that it is a permanent possibility that gods can exist (a permanent possibility is when something can always occur) which in our reality is far closer to being an actual fact than the merely assumed. I would judge that objective belief has a closer to truth value and is a better source for faith than subjective assumption.

4.       Theism verse Moderate Transtheism:

     i. The core dilemma: Believe in the literal appearance of gods or believe in the representative appearance of gods. Put another way, believe that gods literally appear, do things and speak for themselves or believe in the apparent representation of gods by people and things in our reality.  As a question “Do gods appear in our reality or is there just representations of gods in our reality?”

     ii. Major terms: For theism's appearance is the key term, the gods must appear themselves (be present) in our reality before observers and have the same properties of existence as the observers. For example some theist say Jesus was God and that he was a historically real being that appeared on earth.  For the moderate transtheist the key term is representation, which means that an action, sign, symbol, or something stands for gods, but gods need not be present. For example Jesus need not be God his actions represent what Christians think God would act like, if God had been present.

iii. A resolution: From a Moderate Transtheist point of view I would offer this solution the perfect God is an indefinite principle of our reality.  What this principle means is that no being or thing can perfectly be God; God has no exact limits which includes perfection. Sure beings can be God like or approach being something like God but nothing can ever achieve being the perfect ideal God.  All gods, godly beings and so on are then representations of the ideal God.  If something could achieve being the ideal "God" it would at that moment be something other than God, because at that moment it would be something definite not an indefinite ideal. Representations are the only kind of manifestation of an ideal God in our reality, as a consequence of the proposition that "the perfect God is an indefinite principle of our reality". This proposition is support by the following:

     Who or what the perfect God is has not been defined by direct physical evidence or its public appearance. On this point its definition is physically indefinite, which supports the indefinite description of the proposition. 

     The possibility of something approaching an ideal perfect God is real but too how close a degree is indefinite and the real possibility of approaching an ideal is the actual empirical force behind the proposition.  

     The only examinable evidence of the perfect God is representational; preachers, prophets, priests and clergy are God’s human representatives, signs, symbols, holy books and scriptures are God’s recorded representative, the universe and our world is said to represent God’s creator status, god-like men (Moses, Jesus, Mohamed…) are said to represent the will of God, even gods or mythological beings have been considered imperfect representations of an ideal God. All of this representation points to one fact; we only have an indefinite representation of an ideally perfect God. Therefore the perfect God is an indefinite principle of our reality and by default a god or deities of any kind is a representation of something indefinite and ideal.  

5.       Theism verse Ignostic Transtheism:

i.         The core dilemma: This dilemma will be about the knowledge that humans may possess about gods;  Believe the so call positive knowledge of gods existence that theism offers or believe the so call negative knowledge of gods reality that ignostic transtheism offers. Expanding it a bit, believe the claims of gnostic theist that their theology is direct knowledge about gods existence or believe the claims of ignostic transtheist that their theology is indirect knowledge about gods reality.   As a question “Do we have positive knowledge about gods existence or do we have negative knowledge about gods reality?”

ii.       Major team: Knowledge will be understood to mean justified true belief. However the possibility of error or fallibility may still remain with a particular knowledge; depending on how well it has been justified as being true enough for belief. Some examples of knowledge;  

     The possible qualities or properties that something has such as its hardness, a diamond is hard and water is less hard (soft) but water can be hard when it is frozen. The knowledge of qualities (hardness) is a justified true belief because we and the objects of our surrounding reality demonstrate having these qualities. 

     The actual reaction or relationship of things to each other, a ball bounces up off a floor or we see the stares as a reaction to their light that has reach the earth. The knowledge that real things react with each other is a justified true belief because we and the objects of our surrounding reality demonstrate that they do have reaction with each other. 

     The mediating principles or laws that guide our reality now and in the future. Gravity; state as a law, that all physical bodies attract each other. As now, so in the future we will be attracted and held on earth by gravity or if we all hold a stone in our out-starched hands and by releasing the stones they will all fall to the earth today and in the future, according to the principle or law of gravity.  The knowledge of mediating principles is a justified true belief because we and the objects of our surrounding reality demonstrate through our qualities and reactions with each other predicable constant outcomes as principles or laws.

iii.   A resolution: I will say Ignostic Transtheism starts with what is known or negative knowledge “The knowledge of what gods are not”.  Gods are not humans; to be human is not being a god, which is a well justified true belief that is knowledge based on subjective and objective experience.  But what about the gnostic theist claim to have knowledge of gods’ existence beyond one's own existence?  We know what existence means for us and other things; to have existence a thing has properties or qualities, has reactions with other like objects and is governed by laws. I would agree that it is possible that there may be a kind of reality outside these limitations. However these limitations apply to the known universe and the universe has not informed us that it is a god and the gods of theist appear to be absent. It would not be an unfair assessment to say that what gnostic theist call knowledge is more or less conjecture. So back to the resolution (“The knowledge of what gods are not”) in this instance it brings us to choices between; a justified reasons for ignoring the question of god's existence, follow the above method of knowing what gods are not till we find our way to what gods are or accept our ignorance of gods as the final state of our knowledge at this point in time. All three choices imply that gnostic theism's are not in a possession of a well justified true belief or positive knowledge of gods existence. We are left with our negative knowledge, which is “The knowledge of what gods are not”.

6.  Theism verse Eclectic Transtheism:

i.         The core dilemma:   Believe that theism's accurately describe gods or believe that further descriptions are needed about gods. Put another way; believe that theism's possess actual knowledge that supports only their descriptions of gods or believe that there is possible knowledge that supports other descriptions of gods. In the form of a question; Are theism's the only way to understand what gods are or are there other ways to understanding gods?

ii.       Major perceptions: Theism's propagate the perception that they possess sufficient knowledge and understand to be the final authorities and only avenue on what God or gods are. Eclectic Transtheism propagate the perception that it is open to discovery and that one is free to use whatever sources, doctrines and methods to understand and know what God or gods are.

iii.     A resolution: Eclectic Transtheism is a method or approach using the best of whatever sources, doctrines or methods it can to arrive at a belief or a system of beliefs. Gnostic Theism's generally claims their knowledge of gods comes from unique revelations granted to only a few individuals, this can be taken into account as a source. The resolution for Eclectic Transtheism needs to start from something known, a type of knowledge accessible to anyone. I will introduce a new term for this kind of knowledge; Itnosticism: It-knowledge: Referent knowledge or knowledge that refers to something; A justified true belief that refers to something. An example: We know that it, the unknown universe is out there. 
Unlike an Ignostic that say's the word God has no meaning, the Itnostic say's the word God has meaning because it refers to or points at something, the word God has an it value or meaning. The Itnostic knows that it the word God refers to or points at the possibility, a probable or actual reality of God. It (God) is referent to not descriptive of something. And unlike the Gnostic theists which claim to have definitive descriptive knowledge of God, the Itnostic transtheist can view the gnostics knowledge or theologies as referent and not descriptive knowledge. The Itnostic can claim affirmative referent knowledge of something as a starting point for more certain types of knowledge.  

Itnosticism is not limited to the question of God or Divine beings alone but has a much broader scope. As was indicated in the above example of Itnosticism “We know that it, the unknown universe is out there” or on a related subject; whatever the ultimate source of all reality is it is something we need more knowledge about. Even in everyday life, the knowledge of what we have done and what we are doing indicates and refers to a future state for our life, the future in this sense is an Itnosticism which means we have some referent knowledge of it (future), by what actions we take and our sciences.   

III. Atheism verses Transtheism: The main focus will be on the Transtheist response.

1.       Atheism verses Divine Transtheism:

     i. Core dilemma:  If we have to choose between accepting Atheism or Transtheism then there must be a core dilemma to resolve, which is “Have a lack or no belief in the existence of gods (Atheism) or believe in the reality of Divinity (Transtheism)”. Stated a bit clearer, believe there are no grounds for accepting the existence of gods that is the source for the reality of divinity, which is the atheist position. Or believe in the reality of Divinity [as a necessary principle of reality] and account for the occurrence of divine things (such as persons, places, things, ideas and gods), which is the transtheist position. Or we can even put it in the form of a question “No gods means no divinity or is Divinity in principle the source of divine realties?”

     ii. Major terms: The common understanding of reality is that of a broader term that encompasses existence. Also Divinity is a broader term which encompasses gods and other divine things. Further, reality or divinity is not strictly synonymous with existence or gods respectively because existence is encompassed by the broader term reality and gods is encompassed by the broader term Divinity. The transtheist position has a stronger appeal when the normal relationship of these words is maintained. However the atheist position gains appeal when reality or divinity becomes more or less synonymous with existence or gods respectively.

     iii. A resolution: As a transtheist I propose this formula as a resolution “There is no God or gods without divinity and there can be divine things with or without a God or gods.” This formula answers the dilemma and is in agreement with the common understanding, meaning and relationship of the major terms.

The first half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the following ways:

    Conceptually if gods exist they are divine, divinity is necessary for the idea of godliness.

     The mere possibility of gods existing implies the reality of divinity in principle and is the reason for there being a possibility for gods.

     The possibility of gods coming into or existing makes explicit the prior reality of divinity in principle and their potentiality as the reason that gods are able to come into or exist.

     The reality of divinity does not depend on the existence of gods because it is easily ether a reality prior too or simultaneous with gods and is a reality upon which gods depend. The removal of gods does not remove the possibility or actuality of divinity in any forms.

The second half of the formula deals with the dilemma in the following ways:

     Asserting the non-existence of gods is not equivalent to asserting the non-reality of divinity but accepting the reality of divinity is not equivalent to believing in the existence of gods, because the concept of divinity encompasses the concept of gods and other divine things but the concept of gods is limited to God or gods only.

     Divine realities can be believed in, with or without the existence of gods because a God or god’s existence or non-existence is not required to accomplish a belief in divinity.

     Divine reality does not prove that there is or is not gods but only the possibility of a God or gods, because it is a mystery within the reality of the divine potential as to the degree and the possibility of attainability.

2. Atheism verse Hard Transtheism: 

i. The core dilemma: The core dilemma is “Accept the non-existence of God or gods (Atheism) or Believe in the alternate-existence of God or gods (Hard Transtheism)” or put another way believe that gods non-exist is fundamentally the same as other non-exist things or believe gods exist in fundamentally different ways from ours. As a question “Are gods a non-existent or alternate-existent type of being?”

ii. Major terms: Existence in general means to have an identifiable presence within our universe. Alternate-existence would then generally mean to have an identifiable absence within our universe. Non-existence would then generally mean to have no identifiable presence and no identifiable absence within our universe. For example: I wake up in a hospital (with some memory loss) and am conscience of my own presence (existence) and the hospital room. I then notice that I have a wedding ring on my finger which indicates the absence of my mate in the room and the possibility that there can be a mate (alternate-existence).  The doctor enters the room and tells me it is Wednesday-Sunday and asks how I am feeling?  To which I reply; Wednesday-Sunday is a non-existent day and is not a possibility (non-existence), I remember the days of the week now and I am feeling somewhat better.

iii. A resolution: I propose a simple logical starting point:

          We exist.

          We may not exist within god's presence.

          Therefore god may be absent. 

     Likewise; 

          We exist.

          We may exist within god's presence.

          Therefore god may be absent.

Something which may be present is generally considered absent until its presence is identified, therefore gods may be absent is a correct conclusion. Because the same conclusion of absence is reached ether way when considering the possible presence of god, the proposition that gods exist or are non-existent can be ruled out in favor of gods are absent, in the context of the above logical statements. Since the stronger position is that gods are absent and connected with a universal experience of gods being absent in the life of all human individuals (at least perceptual in their early youth), I may infer that gods have an alternate-existence, which results in their absence in our reality. This is a consistent reason why gods are absent with a possibility of being present. Hard Transtheist my reach the alternate-existence or alternate-reality in different ways but the absence of gods in our reality to some degree or another is a common theme and the identifiable marker of god's absence such as divinity in our reality, just like in the above example of a wedding ring (divinity) on my finger indicates the absence of my mate in the room or the possibility that there can be a mate, those who experience divinity have an indicator of god’s absence with god's possible alternate-existence. Atheism agrees with the absence of God or gods as We exist. 

A stronger inference can be made for an alternate-reality over non-existence of God or gods with a slightly different logical statement.

          We exist.

          We do not exist within god's presence.

          Therefore god is absent. 

Or

          We exist.

          We cannot exist within god's presence.

          Therefore god is absent. 

The assumed Non-existence of god is not a logical conclusion for these statements but absence is and is open to an alternate-reality as the reason.

3.     Atheism verse Soft Transtheism:

i. The Core dilemma: Accept the non-existence of God or gods as being true or believe in the plausibility of a God or gods. Or believe that a God or gods possibility is somehow a permanent present part of our reality. As a question “Should we accept that gods actually do not exist or should we believe in the potential for gods?

ii. Major terms: Subjective belief is something personally accepted as being true. Objective belief is accepting the plausibility of something being true with and ever presents possibility that it can change. Abject belief accepts the truth of something being true because it is unlikely to be otherwise. Atheism is the subjective position that the non-existence of God is true and a fact of our reality. Soft Transtheism is the objective or abject belief that the existence of God is plausible as a possibility of our reality.   

iii. A resolution: From a Soft Transtheist position I would propose that objective or abject belief is superior to subjective belief on the question of a God or gods possibility for the follow reasons.

     Objective or abject belief is superior because it precedes or is the source of subjective belief, that is to say before we can believe something subjectively we must believe it objectively or abjectively first.  Because something must appear worthy of belief (for whatever reasons) before it can be believed to be true. The moment we believe something is plausible (having the possibility of being true or worthy of belief) this is objective or abject belief and then may be transformed into subjective belief.

     Objective or abject belief is superior because it is more comprehensive in that it is the genus to species of beliefs (transtheism, theism, atheism…). Objectivity about a belief allows a person a degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change their belief for different reasons, which is freedom to believe whatever they choose and to change whenever they choose.  In essence objective belief nether completely accepts or rejects competing worthy beliefs, however a person my favor one belief over others. Abject belief is superior because it is more comprehensive in that it is the genus to species of beliefs (transtheism, theism, atheism…). Abjective belief does not allow much freedom to reject the truth of something. The truth of something is so preserved that there appears no way it could be otherwise, so that one is force to accept it as true (1+1=2).   

 

             

CHAPTER3

Neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of deities

              

                No proof is required to neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of deity. It does imply an objective position or neutrality. And is an excellent way to be open to evidence in whatever form one might accept. However one could take it as their final position and make it a subjective position of faith or reason.  As such one is not required to prove their fundamental position as being correct or incorrect.  One can provisionally accept the existence of deity and acknowledge the possibility of its non-existence.  The main provision is to neither completely assert nor reject the existence of deity. By neither completely believing nor denying the existence of deity, one is in a relative state of neutrality or objectivity; you can believe to a point and not believe to a point but not to the point of certainty.

               Is it true or false that gods exist? I would say that the question is better stated “Is X true or false? Without defining, perceiving or experiencing X exactly (X=gods exist) one is left with only a contingent possibility. This is my Transtheism starting position, X is a known possibility.  That is to say X is something not known to be true or false but is neither. Sure theist and atheist would like to move the question out of the realm of possibility to a factual position that says gods exist or not. But if something is a possibility it is neither true nor false but in a neutral state. God as a possibility is neither existing nor non-exist but is a neutral actuality, as far as possibilities are factual actualities. I view gods as neutral realities between existence and non-existence having factual actuality. I then neither completely assert nor reject the existence of X.

               Do gods exist as we experience existence? The theist answer to this question is definitely yes; god’s exist and are of supreme  importance. Transtheist acknowledge the possibility of gods existing but importance is another matter. But can a person believe that gods exist and not be a theist? There is more than one kind of belief; the subjective belief of theists that the existence of gods is to be considered a fact of their personal reality or there is the objective belief of transtheist which can assume the existence of gods as a provisional  fact of reality, personal or general. Yes, someone can objectively believe in gods without being a theist. Transtheism is then, distinct from theism in the character of its belief and its attitude about the existence deity, on this point. 

                An objective belief can merely assume or acknowledge the possibility or probability of a belief, but neither completely asserts nor rejects the complete correctness of a belief, which means freedom to participate in other belief but not clinging to a single subjective belief.  A subjective belief assert the complete correctness of a belief were as objective belief can assert or assume the possible or probable correctness of a belief to some degree. Objectivity in belief allows a person a degree of separation so that they have the freedom to change their belief for different reasons. This is important because a belief is an accepted or assumed mode of thought which influences the mind and its actions. This places a person in control of their beliefs as objective tools rather than the person being a tool of a subjective belief.  Theism and atheism are subjective beliefs, Transtheism as an objectivity belief is categorically different and is not a theism or atheism. 

To neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of deity, is to allow objectivity in belief but it can also be a position of neutrality about the question of gods’ existence, by first acknowledging the fallibility of answering the question. This fallibility in principle is that theism, atheism or agnosticism could be wrong about their beliefs, expectations, or their understanding of gods’ existence. Because fallibilism, practically means that people cannot attain absolute certainty concerning questions of fact. Next, the transtheist can assert that the question of gods’ existence is neutral ground or a no man’s land; No one has absolute right to claim their answer is correct; the correct position is that it is neutral ground or a no man’s land, factually; theism, atheism and agnosticism are not correct answers. However, the transtheist can take the neutral position and acknowledge the possibility of knowing gods exist , as the correct position.

Let’s assume for the moment that we human are not totally at fault with our fallible knowledge.  In reality we can acknowledge at least this much, that there is a possibility that gods exist. Based on that fact, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of gods. Next, at least this much can be acknowledged about gods, they can be absent. The existence or non-existence of gods is not an everyday directly observable fact but the absence of gods is an everyday observable fact. Based on the fact of absence, one is justified in neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of gods

Now, these two facts do not support theism, atheism or agnosticism. However transtheism is supported by these two facts as a neutral position.