This short paper will be mainly my own opinion and does not
represent all transtheist points of views.
Do gods exist?
a. Theist: yes
b. Atheist: no
c. Gnostic: knowable
d. Agnostic: unknowable
e. Transtheist: optional
(balanced neutrality, see note 1)
Three assumptions I make as a transtheist to support the
optional neutral position:
A. The existence of divinity
or gods in our reality is optional.
B. Belief in the existence of
divinity or gods is optional.
C. The perception of divinity
or gods is optional.
A. The existence of divinity
or gods is optional in our reality.
There are two main ways to approach the first assumption
that the existence of divinity or gods is optional in our reality. First
that our reality can be the source of the divinity or gods or second that there
is another source for divinity or gods in our reality. Either way it is
implied that our reality can exist with or without them but is capable of
having them. The possibilities of divinity or gods to exist or not is
then assumed to be a reasonable option for our reality.
If our reality is the source of divinity or gods then they
either are or were subject to the laws of our reality at some time. The
common meaning for the word supernatural is something that is not subject to
the natural laws of our reality. So these types of gods or divinities are
not supernatural at first but can rise above the norm. The meaning of
divinity that I am using is the property, quality or action of being and
becoming a greater reality. The idea of transcendence is implied in the
concepts of gods and divinity, in this sense they become less and less subject
to the laws of our reality and are at some point not in the public domain but
the private domain of their own reality. Their public existence or
nonexistence which is subject to the public laws of reality is optional for
them. This agrees with the assumption that the existence of divinity or
gods is optional in our reality.
Under the right circumstance or conditions it is possible
for a divine reality to manifest itself by chance, evolution or choice as a
result of our reality. But at some point it becomes a private separate
reality of its own and we can call it another reality as in the term
supernatural. Supernatural then approaches a relationship to our natural
reality as being the same as something divine which did not originate in our
reality. Since both are separate entities from our reality. Their
existence in our reality is up to them, so far as we know. However, if a
divine reality never reaches the supernatural state but remains let’s say in a
super-normal relationship to our reality it would be subject to very few of the
laws of our reality, perhaps even only the ones it finds acceptable. We
then can divide Transtheism into a natural (super-normal) and supernatural
forms of divinity or gods, which are possible in our reality.
If there is another source for divinity or gods in our
reality than that god’s existence is optional, it is up to god to exist or not
in our reality as a private matter for god to decide. In this sense when
we utter the word god, we are uttering a non-categorical interjection, a term
that implies divinity, the reality of existence or non-existence in our reality
can be possessed by god as something extra. Existence or non-existence
for god is optional and would at best be a secondary quality, attribute as
existence for that god. That is, existing or non-existing is like putting
on clothing for existence or taking off clothing for non-existence, the cloth
in and of itself does not give us evidence of who is wearing it or who is not
wearing it, our reality is the cloth. This is why god as a private
non-categorical neutral reality does not fall under the natural categories of
beings in our reality.
The debate over god’s existence or non-existence should be
about its optional nature for the follow reasons.
a. The term god does not
fall into the category of existing or non-existing things; it is an
interjection implying a divine utterance.
b. God’s primer reality is
private to god, so evidence ether way is not public property.
c. God may or may not
secondarily exist at any instant or place, so evidence ether way is inconclusive
about god’s primer reality.
d. God can secondarily exists
or non-existent at any instant or place within our reality, from our point of
view our reality is functioning like our reality, even though it may be under
the influence of god or not. We do not perceive conclusive evidence
either way for god’s existence or not. Our reality is merely the cloth of
existence or nonexistence that god can put on or take off at any time.
e. If god exists as something
within and part of our reality, it would not fully be god in the primaries
sense and so would not provide conclusive evidence of god’s primary existence
or not.
This neutrality as a separate entity allows god to
potentially possess or not possess any attributes or qualities of our reality,
such as existence or non-existence. Mutable neutrality gives god the
possibility of possessing or not possessing any attributes of reality but god
is potentially immutable by not totally giving up neutrality. Mutable
neutrality keeps god from being a dead absolutely by avoiding the contradiction
of absolutely opposite attributes being possessed in the same entity or
absolute stagnation in a single attribute.
In this way, god can have both transcendence and immanence
through neutrality and mutability. If the only constant in our reality is
change then a mutable neutral god would not be so alien to our reality. If god
can exist secondarily at any place and at any time then god can potentially be
omnipresent, even for the slightest moment. If god can exist secondarily
at any place and anytime then god potentially can be omniscient, nothing would
beyond god’s knowing. If god can exist secondarily at any place and at
any time then god can potentially be omnipotent, nothing would be beyond god’s
influence. And if god can be secondarily in any place and at any time but
does not, then god is transcendent and beyond all things but has potential
immanence with everything. Through all of this the existence of divinity
or gods is optional in our reality. Our reality maintains its ability to
exist with or without them and they are allowed their godly attributes as
proclaimed in many theologies.
B. Belief in the existence of
divinity or gods is optional.
I’ll give the following points on this:
a. God in our public
reality is not presented to our senses as an irresistible or refutable fact or
truth of conscious perception or observation, at least that has been my
experience so far. Belief then is optional.
b. Throughout human history
belief or not in a god or gods has been so varied and vast that it seems we’re
not naturally determined by our environment to believe one way or other.
Belief then is optional.
c. Belief for me is an
accepted mode of thought which influences the mind and its actions. If I
accept what I said in “a” and “b” as being true then belief is optional.
But what kind of belief maintains that optional nature? It would be a
belief that neither completely asserts nor rejects the existence of divinity or
gods but recognizes any belief or not as a mode of thought.
d. For me any system of
thought philosophical, religious or spiritual about our reality that has belief
in the existence of divinity (which implies the possibility of gods) as a legitimate part of our reality is Transtheistic.
C. The perception of divinity
or gods is optional.
The minimum perception that one can have is that divinity or
gods is a real possibility of our existence. This perception of course
can be accepted or rejected for different reasons. However it is still a
possible perception about our reality, in general or as a personal option.
a. The perception of
god’s potential presence as a reality or as a mode of thought may give reason
enough for the acceptance of different kinds of evidence, about the existence
of divinity or gods. However we have the option of accepting, rejecting
or being neutral about the evidence.
b. The actual presence of gods
is in their control, as is the effect of that presents. We often perceive
god’s as totally sovereign beings or as independent realities which are
generally free from the control of our public reality. As such our actual
experience of them is within their control to a very large degree.
c. The actual absence of
gods is in their control, but the effect of their absence is not totally in
their control. That is to say, that the presence of gods has a definite
affect and the absence of gods has an indefinite affect. One of those
indefinite affects is that we can all experience the absence of divinity or
gods. The interpretation of this perceptual experience about the absence
of god can range from the absence of what could or does exist to the absence of
what may or does not exist. Either way, the common perceptual experience
of divine absence implies the possibility of something divine or godly.
Absence is something we can know by experience.
d. So far I’ve talked about
the general perception of divinity or gods, however at this point I’d like to
say a few words about the personal perception of divinity. The perception
or experience of divinity on a personal level is within our control as an
individual. We have a conscience sense of our own individuality; this can
lead us to the perception of our possible divinity. It is our own
individuality which implies a separation to some degree from general reality
and our own self-control. Divinity as in the possibility or potential of
being and becoming a greater or better reality is a positive self-perception of
an attribute we can know by experience. We can perceive the potential
divinity within ourselves and others, not only that but the potential divinity
generating possibility of reality in general.
e. Perception of the
transcendent and imminent law of divinity. It is transcendent in that nothing
is beyond its jurisdiction and it is immanent in that everything is within its
domain. As a Law it is the possibility of being and becoming a greater or
better reality, so on to infinity. It is a non-essential and separable
attribute of individual things but is an essential an inseparable at attribute
of universal reality, as a thing in itself. Individual things can become
progressively more divine by certain activities or they can lose that divinity
by certain activities. However the possibility of divinity remains a
constant possibility in our general reality. Absolute divinity for an
individual thing is unattainable so long as it is an individual thing.
Absolute divinity is essential an inseparable with itself as a possibility of
law for all realities. In other words, an abstract reality that functions
as a concrete reality for all things.
Notes:
1.Neutrality that neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of god but try’s to balance the possibilities and facts into a workable neutral position of objective belief.
I’m still working on this paper.
1.Neutrality that neither completely asserting nor rejecting the existence of god but try’s to balance the possibilities and facts into a workable neutral position of objective belief.
I’m still working on this paper.
2.
