(work in progress)
A simple comparison can illustrate the difference between the positions:
1. Transtheism is true if something exists and or is true whether deities exist or otherwise.
1. Transtheism is true if something exists and or is true whether deities exist or otherwise.
a. Ignosticism is true if there is ignorance about deity(s) existing or otherwise.
b. Itgnosticism is true if there is attainable knowledge indicative of deity(s) existing or otherwise.
2. Atheism is true if all deities do not exist.
a. Agnosticism is true if there is no attainable knowledge about deity(s) existing or not.
1 3. Theism is true if its deity(s) exist.
a. Gnosticism is true if there is attainable knowledge that deity(s) exists.
2
A standard for believing in something being truth, derived from each position; Transtheism, Atheism or Theism:
1. Transtheism; Believe in things that are or can be true whether deities exist or otherwise.
2. Atheism: Believe in things that are or can be true by all deities not exiting.
1. Transtheism; Believe in things that are or can be true whether deities exist or otherwise.
2. Atheism: Believe in things that are or can be true by all deities not exiting.
3. Theism: Believe in things that are or can be true by deity(s) existing.
Definitions of Transtheism:
Some Simple definitions:
Transtheism is the belief that something transcends any theistic deity(s), hence transcending theism or Transtheism.
Transtheism is a belief in something that transcends (is over, above, beyond or behind) divine Beings [God, deity's...] whether they exist or otherwise.
Transtheism is the belief that there is Reality and truth whether divine Beings [God, deity...] exist or otherwise.
Specifically defined:
Transtheism is belief in a system of thought about reality; philosophical, religious, or spiritual, that can be held to be true with or without a belief in divine Beings [God, deities...].
Broadly defined:
Transtheism is a system of thought about what ultimate reality is; philosophical, religious, or spiritual, which neither is theism, atheism, Gnosticism, nor agnosticism but is a position of belief whereby the reality of divinity has within it the mystery of deification [God, deities ...] that is circumvented or transcended in some way by an ultimate reality.
I. Transtheism in its rejection of theism and atheism.
Transtheism is a rejection of the importance of deity’s existence or non-existence as a critical question that needs to be answered before understanding what ultimate reality is. If it is true that something exists, whether deity exist or otherwise, then deity is downgraded from being the only possible ultimate reality to sharing that position with something else or deity is transcended and made to be of secondary or lesser importance to a greater reality. How viable then is deity as a non-observable state and a non-provable question to be answered, in comparison to something that is observable and provable; the real existent thing has a better case as a candidate for being ultimate reality over any supposed deified being . Deity then may be less of an impressive candidate to be ultimate reality.
Transtheism is also a rejection of deities’ causal connection to our reality. Not only does it directly reject deity as being the only creative source for the universe existence but Transtheism strongly supports the belief, that things can and do occur throughout all reality whether deities cause or will it or not.
As to the question of deity's existence, whereas theist say their deity(s) exists and atheist say all deity(s) do not exist, either position is not observable, not provable and commits the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity, which is the error of applying an improper categorical reality to deity(s) in the following way; Since theist cannot guarantee that it is correct that their deity(s) exit as other things that do exist in reality this is an improper categorical reality applied to deity(s). Nether can atheist guarantee that it is correct that all deities do not exists as do all other things that do not exist in reality this is an improper categorical reality applied to deity(s).
This leads to the fundamental fact that the existence or non-existence of deified states of beings in reality is a mystery. Transtheism avoids the pit falls of theism and atheism by an affirmative response to divinity as a reality itself whether deified states of beings exist or otherwise. They often accept the mystery of deification as a fundamental possibility within reality but by acknowledging the factual uncertainty of the terms existence or nonexistence to describe any deity is grounds enough to reject the "certainty" of theism and atheism positions.
Beyond the rejection of theism and atheism (and to a lesser extent Gnosticism and agnosticism) uncertainty, Transtheist respond to the question of deity's possible reality beyond the uncertain terms of existence or non-existence and the Fallacy of Misplaced Deity with many alternative responses or third propositions to existence or non-existence.
1. The Hard Transtheist response is to reject completely existence and nonexistence as being two unreliable terms for describing a deity's reality and propose a third 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 Soft Transtheist response is to neither completely reject nor accept the terms existence and nonexistence as describing deity'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 deities 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 deities, 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 Moderate Transtheist response is to accept "God, gods or deities" in principle but not as necessarily existent or non-existent things, which points at the ideal or metaphorical realities of a "God, gods or deities" as a third proposition. Some examples:
Plato: Deity is perhaps 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 Likeness, Justus, Truth, Beauty, Goodness and so on have their own eternal reality and our temporal physical existence is just an imperfect copy 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 imperfect copies of the archetypal Ideal God, by the subordinate Demiurge or creative force of realty.
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 right pleasure [tranquillity] 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, God thinks only about God. Everything in the cosmos has a natural function, which is its purpose. All things are guide by this purpose or Telos.
4. The Ignostic Transtheist response is that existence and nonexistence are unsupportable and meaningless description of a God or deity(s) reality, which points at the undefinable reality of a God or deity(s) 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 Eclectic Transtheist response is that there is nothing coherently committing anyone to the terms existence and nonexistence or other descriptions of a God or deity's, 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 transcend to 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 Universalist: "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. The Divine or ItnosticTranstheist (I 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) response is that divinity is a reality and the possibility of deity (a Deity or god(s) is a mystery referred to within divinity. It is not completely true to say that God or deities do or do not exist but our knowledge of divinity refers us to what a higher divine reality could be. Itnostic Transtheism rejects the certainty of Theism's and Atheism's propositions about existence or non-existence but accepts the reality of divinity and its higher mysteries; it is then the divine reality with its higher mysteries that is the third proposition. Some examples:
Anaximander of Miletus (610-546 BCE). Reality is the Boundless (Unlimited, Infinite, Apeiron or Indefinite Stuff) with eternal motion and is the origin of all that is and is the primary metaphysical principle behind the phenomenal world, which the world returns too. The Boundless is eternal, immortal, and impersonal and is non-created [unborn]. This gives the indefinite stuff (Boundless) a natural divinity but it is beyond being limited to existence as a deity, in other words the Boundless is behind or the source of divinity for beings or deity(s), which avoids identifying the Apeiron as a pantheistic being. Anaximander is an eternal transtheist because the Boundless or Apeiron is an eternal Reality weather deities exist or not. He is a divine or itnostic transtheist because divinity is a natural property of the Apeiron and phenomenal world, I consider Anaximander to be the father of Transtheism in the west. http://www.iep.utm.edu/
Anaximander of Miletus (610-546 BCE). Reality is the Boundless (Unlimited, Infinite, Apeiron or Indefinite Stuff) with eternal motion and is the origin of all that is and is the primary metaphysical principle behind the phenomenal world, which the world returns too. The Boundless is eternal, immortal, and impersonal and is non-created [unborn]. This gives the indefinite stuff (Boundless) a natural divinity but it is beyond being limited to existence as a deity, in other words the Boundless is behind or the source of divinity for beings or deity(s), which avoids identifying the Apeiron as a pantheistic being. Anaximander is an eternal transtheist because the Boundless or Apeiron is an eternal Reality weather deities exist or not. He is a divine or itnostic transtheist because divinity is a natural property of the Apeiron and phenomenal world, I consider Anaximander to be the father of Transtheism in the west. http://www.iep.utm.edu/
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, 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 for the reality of God or deities (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.
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 is 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. Itnostic Transtheism (or non-theistic) mysticism does not require a belief in the existence of God or deity(s) 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 otherwise. 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 deity(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 existence or nonexistence. As such this type of reality would be there with or without a deity. 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 deities. Moderate Transtheism posits a standard or natural purpose for reality to advance towards (Ideal forms, Telos, ultimate happiness...). This process will continue with or without a God or deitys. Ignostic Transtheism posits that we are ignorant (lacking positive knowledge) and unable to express the true reality of God or deities 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 deities if they exist or not. Itnostic Transtheism posits divinity is an essential part of our reality that we can take part in with or without deities. 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 can be eternal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
2.That there can be temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
1. That there can be eternal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
2.That there can be temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
3 3. That there can be change continuity and caprice between the eternal and temporal reality(s) and truth(s), whether Divine beings exist or not.
As a permanent self-sufficient super reality, primarily deity would be an extremely transcendent permanent 100% deified being. Theism has gone wrong in making deities have permanent characteristics thereby removing deity’s fundamental freedom and its free modality; deities are then permanent static transcendent beings. In this way theism “kills” its own deity and worships a permanent theological corpus deity as a real thing. Theism's error is the assumption of the permanent 100% deified being.
iii.
I
II. Where has atheism and theism gone wrong about deity?
i. Atheism can only be true if all deities do not exist.
Atheism has been wrong in estimating deity as a quantity only. Atheism generally claims that deities are non-existent or having zero reality. This claim for the most part has been aimed at the so call pure deities in other word a being that is 100% deity. Not so much for beings that are less than 100% deity, suppose a being is ¾, ½, ¼, or one part per 1,000,000 and so on deified. Or a being is engaged in activities or a process that are or maybe deifying it in some way.
Atheism's claim is then wrong that deities are non-existent or having zero reality, if the merest activity or process in the slightest way makes a being deified either physically, mentally or otherwise. Deity under these considerations is not limited to quantities alone but to qualities also that a human being can have that is not a 100% deity but act with the qualities that make it somewhat a deified human being. Someone that has free will by circumstances and or their own actions is demonstrates the way a person by circumstances and or their own actions are deified in quality.
A deified being however slight the deification is in quantity or quality represents the reality of deity as an actuality in our world. In this sense the intellectual, moral, social, physical or otherwise deification of the human beings represents the reality of deity but not directly the existence of any particular 100% deity. However atheism is the rejection of deities existence in the past, present and possible future, is theism's focus on 100% deity the source of atheism's error? No atheism is responsible for its own error, the assumption of the permanent zero-existence of any forms of deity.
ii. Theism can only be true if its deity(s) exist.
Theism's have been wrong in estimating some of the characteristics and mode of deity. Theism’s in general has viewed deities as super permanent realities to the point of absurdity or having a top down view of the reality of divinity. What is a being that is 100% deity? According too much theism it is a being that is absolutely its own reality or a permanent self-sufficient being. So much so that deities exist only at the super highest levels of reality necessarily or transcend beyond all limits, which creates a disconnection from our lower levels of reality.
iii.
I
III. Theism verses Transtheism: The main focus will be on the Transtheist response.
1. Theism verses Divine Transtheism:
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 exist without deity(s) presence.
Therefore deity is absent.
Likewise;
We exist.
We exist with deity(s) absence.
Therefore deity is absent.
Something which may be present is generally considered absent until its presence is identified, therefore deity is absent is a correct conclusion. Because the same conclusion of absence is reached ether way when considering the possible of our existence and deities non-presence , the proposition that deity exist or are non-existent can be ruled out in favor of deities are absent, in the context of the above logical statements. Since the stronger position is that deities are absent and connected with a universal experience of deities being absent in the life of all human individuals (at least perceptual in their early youth), I may infer that deities have an alternate-existence, which results in their absence in our reality. This is a consistent reason why deities 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 deities in our reality to some degree or another is a common theme and the identifiable marker of deity'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 is 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 examined 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. And Itgnostic having referent knowledge to God.
Unlike an Ignostic that say's the word God has no meaning, the Itgnostic 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 Itgnostic 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 Itgnostic transtheist can view the gnostics knowledge or theologies as referent and not descriptive knowledge. The Itgnostic can claim affirmative referent knowledge of something as a starting point for more certain types of knowledge.
Unlike an Ignostic that say's the word God has no meaning, the Itgnostic 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 Itgnostic 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 Itgnostic transtheist can view the gnostics knowledge or theologies as referent and not descriptive knowledge. The Itgnostic 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.
IV. 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 would 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 the attainability of higher divine states.
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).
