Theism & Atheism: A Synthesis

by Brian Kuenning (Special K)

There is a story in one of the Eastern spiritual traditions in which a student asks a monk, "How does a seed grow into a plant?"

The monk says, "Well... cut the seed open and find out."

So, the student cuts the seed open and says, "There is just white powder inside."

The monk replies, "Sure. No problem. Then see what's inside the white powder."

"Nothing. There's nothing inside the white powder."

You could argue that the seed (or everything else) comes out of......nothing?!?!

Actually, I would contend that the substance that lies behind the white powder is an energetic blueprint for what the seed is supposed to become, a.k.a. an imagination. But what lies behind that are subtler and subtler levels of existence or consciousness which eventually leads to the subtlest level, whatever that is. The only things that can get subtler and subtler than the physical are different states or levels of consciousness. This can lead us to the perfect "God" concept which I will explain more here.

Life exists on a spectrum of subtlety. From the most subtle to the least subtle (gross) a.k.a. the physical. So, at a certain point of breaking the physical down to smaller and smaller pieces, eventually you get to the point where existence is no longer physical. It is something more subtle than the physical.

Scientists today are caught up in the same problem the student was. They just don't realize it, and they're trying to solve this exploration with expensive equipment as opposed to just having a question in their minds.

Scientists broke matter down into molecules. That wasn't tiny enough, so they went to atoms. But still they pushed further into subatomic particles and then finally strings with string theory.

Aaaaaaaannnnnnnnd.....now what?

What's behind the strings? A bag of cats? Ya see. This is the infinite regress problem. You can't keep having an endless series of things, one behind the other. The buck has to stop somewhere. Their problem is that what's behind the physical is non-physical existence. But this is hard to fathom when science still wants to work under the premise that all of existence can be reduced down to physical processes.

The best story we have to explain the universe is simply to say that it was manifested into existence the same exact way you can manifest things into your own life, which is through thought, feeling, visualization, and assumption processes.

The world was thought, felt, visualized, and assumed into existence because consciousness inherently has the power to do those things… as you can prove for yourself through your own testing.

I am building a philosophy around this, which I call "Manifestationism." The key is that you can test that this manifestation does work for yourself. I invite you to prove it to yourself. This self-generated proof distinguishes it from other philosophies that have been put forward so far.

The Aboriginals called the universe "The Dreamtime." That's more accurate than the views of the universe as defined by science today. They knew this simply by being in tune with nature, no training, no equipment, no controlled studies or lab science required.

Zulu shamans explain that the physical world emerged from The Knowing Field, the fabric of existence that some call Consciousness, God Consciousness, or Source.

Yoga Philosophy relies upon an understanding of the element of Ether as the Field of Consciousness.

Consider these things.

Let us begin with the premise that existence exists on a spectrum of gradations of subtlety. Then let us assume that the subtler aspects control the grosser (less subtle) aspects. We can prove this. Very easily, we can build a super nice "God" concept here: simply that "God" is the subtlest aspect of existence. Interestingly, that means it borders on nothingness because the subtlest thing almost does not exist. After all, it is that subtle.

You could argue that it is nothingness or "emptiness" or "the Void" as some Buddhist teachings have worded it. You can argue that this view is Atheistic or that it affirms atheism because it describes “God” as nothing. But you could also argue that it is theistic because it affirms the existence of a God, but it is simply saying that God is nothingness. You can also argue that God exists, but it is not a "thing" (thing implying something finite or physical). Therefore, it is a "no-thing." Sadhguru speaks about this: ”Whether you say ‘God is everywhere’ or you say ‘Everything is one energy’ it is the same reality expressed in different ways.”

So, at the end of the day, you can claim there is a God if you want a sacred lens from which to view the world. You can claim there isn't if you want a lens of the world that places more emphasis on strict and accurate descriptiveness without superimposing any unnecessary or unproven claims onto your mental framework. But perhaps it is just that existence exists on a spectrum from the subtlest to the grossest. You are free to choose your semantics/mental framework/lens as you please.

You can reflect upon how the Yin Yang symbol represents this dichotomy. The white teardrop contains the black dot and the black teardrop contains the white dot. One interpretation is "everything contains its opposite," meaning physical existence contains non-physical existence and non-physical existence contains physical existence. But simultaneously, they fit together and work together.

Final note: This is also a completion of the Hegelian dialectic on theism vs. atheism. For those that don't know, Hegel argued that history is basically a "playing out" of thesis vs. antithesis, which eventually leads to a synthesis. The view I've put forward here is a synthesis of theism and atheism.