Have You Ever Wondered How the World Would Be With Just One Entity or a Centralised Belief?
A few days ago, I stumbled upon a YouTube video. Although it wasn’t the first time I had come across videos of that genre, that’s not the point here.
In the video, the host was discussing the concept of manifesting your desires simply by imagining them. He spent the next 35 minutes or more explaining, step by step, how you could visualise your desires, live in that imagination, access it, describe it, and gradually bring it into reality.
You should have seen the confidence with which he explained the entire concept.
Now, I’m not going to be the judge of whether he’s right or wrong. But here’s something that particularly caught my attention.
In the comment section, a couple of people were testifying to the effectiveness of the method. One person narrated how she had applied the technique eight months earlier and eventually got herself a new house, something she had never imagined owning before watching the video.
Another person countered her testimony with a simple question:
“What if it’s just a coincidence?”
And that’s exactly where my concern begins.
We have developed so many belief systems that sometimes, I wonder whether we even know which ones actually work, which ones don’t, and which experiences are simply coincidences that we have chosen to interpret differently.
Consider these examples:
“Oh, would you believe this? I tried this new method I just learnt about manifesting money for myself, and within an hour, someone I hadn’t spoken to in a while sent me some money.”
Or:
“I had been applying for jobs for over three years without success. Then, last week, I came across a post about the spiritual method of landing a job. I tried it, and yesterday, I got employed!”
Now, what happens next?
One person attributes the experience to manifestation. Another might call it divine intervention. Someone else might interpret it through spirituality, while another person simply considers it a coincidence.
And just like that, one event becomes another explanation, another philosophy, another theory, and potentially another belief system.
This brings me to the bigger question: How many explanations of existence do we actually need?
Think about some of the major frameworks through which humanity attempts to understand life and existence:
– Science.
– Philosophy.
– Psychology.
– Religion.
– Spirituality.
– Various theories and schools of thought.
Each provides a different approach to understanding certain aspects of our existence. Some complement one another, while others disagree fundamentally.
And this is where my curiosity begins.
Everybody seems to have something they believe in. Everybody has an explanation for why certain things happen and how certain outcomes are achieved. Sometimes, people become so convinced of their explanations that they hardly consider the possibility that their interpretation might be wrong.
I began wondering: What is actually true among all these explanations, and what isn’t?
How do we distinguish between something that genuinely works, something that happens by chance, and something we have simply convinced ourselves works because of the circumstances surrounding it?
At some point, I started imagining how much easier existence might be if humanity had one universally recognised entity or fundamental belief.
I’m not necessarily proposing that this should be a particular religion, deity, philosophy, or existing belief system. I’m not even arguing that one of the existing entities should become the universally accepted one.
I’m simply entertaining the idea of ONE.
One fundamental entity. One universally understood foundation. No competing claims about which entity is responsible for what. No endless attempts to establish which supernatural explanation is correct.
Perhaps humanity could spend less time navigating conflicting explanations and more time understanding and improving the world around us.
Of course, having one universally accepted belief wouldn’t automatically eliminate every disagreement or guarantee that humanity would get everything right. Universal agreement doesn’t necessarily establish truth.
But I still find myself questioning whether having so many competing explanations has made our search for truth unnecessarily complicated.
Or perhaps I’m looking at this from the wrong perspective.
Maybe life, in its entirety, is simply a mystery. Maybe there are things we will never completely understand, regardless of how many theories we develop, how many philosophies we explore, or how many entities we attribute our experiences to.
And perhaps the real challenge isn’t finding another explanation, but learning to recognise the limits of what we can actually know.
I wonder what the world would look like if humanity had just one fundamental belief to begin with.
Comments