Do gods exist? A Transtheistic response:

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.

2.