I'm guessing you yourself have some well thought out reasoning behind your perspective.
Science only hints at monism, it does not prove it in any way. Our dispute with nihilists and materialists pertains to the amount of risk horizon we bear in our grasp/inference about our universe. I contend that the risk horizon on such inference is extraordinarily high (the red bar with the caution symbol inside it, in the middle below) - we don't even know what we do not even know. This is a state of what I call Type II Horizon Risk. In a technology roll out, I would be advocating - 'hold on', we might be putting stakeholders at extreme risk.
We exist in a state of High Domain Epistemological Risk about the nature of being inside our realm.
So this introduces four principles which constrain me from becoming a theist or a nihilist, I philosophically call them (From Ignosticism)
I. Principle of Indistinguishability (vertical)
/philosophy : science : boundary conditions : limits for claims/ : any sufficiently advanced act of benevolence is indistinguishable from either malevolence or chance.
II. Neti’s Razor (horizontal)
/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : one cannot produce evidence from a finite deterministic domain, sufficient to derive a conclusion that nothing aside from that domain therefore exists.
III. I Am that I Am (horizontal)
/philosophy : existentialism : boundary condition/ : that which possesses the unique ability to be able to define itself, renders all other entities disqualified in such expertise. There is no such thing as an expert in god (even inside plurality).
IV. Non-Existence Definition (vertical)
/philosophy : science : skepticism : elements of attributes/definition/ : six questions form the basis of a definition: What, Where, When, How, Why, Who. The answers to this set of six questions still form an expert definition of attributes, even if the answer to all six is ’empty set’.
Based upon these four constraints, for me, becoming a fundamentalist theist or a nihilist is something I cannot ethically do. Both the fundamentalist and the nihilist are making unsubstantiated claims about the full nature of the universe. As for me, I was not offered the information to make such a conclusion.
The boundary of our universe and all its functions asymptopes back in upon itself, impenetrably so. If there is a purposeful focus here (and that is an if) - it must be on something else.