In an earlier post, I explored What I feel is a more sensible application of Pascal’s Wager to God’s existence.
Now I am attempting one founded in game theory.
Goes like this:
I like what someone said: I am an apatheist.
But my version is:
God does not need my belief to exist.
This then could go around something like this:
* god exists:: Is It communicating with anyone?
How can We, as a group, know which individual It is communicating with?
1) we (as a group) cannot know for sure.
2) we can know: some are right, some are wrong.
A. Power is evidence of who God is communicating with. (War)
B. Or, no power is evidence. (Peace)
2) God is communicating.
A. No one knows who (1.)
B. Everyone can know.
If God can be communicating with everyone then the question becomes:
– can we accept that someone else May have the correct communication?
This last Does Not reflect back to the first person pondering for a double-back contradiction. Instead, the answer only concerns the possibility of the other person having the correct communion. It has nothing to do with ‘agreement’.
This can be consistent with game theory (if I remember correctly) with sides equally powerful which is able to destroy the other conclusively.
Matching moves under condition:
– I will not shoot if you do not shoot
– if you shoot and I am not destroyed, then I will destroy you.
It is most beneficial to both sides if the each person places the impetus of truth on the other person, into the possibility that the other is indeed receiving a valid and correct direct communication from God.
And then some more, Not game theory possibilities:
…. I have a different way of putting it.
I say that for philosophy, the proper issue is of The 2. This is the Kierkegaardian question; though K speaks of the relation of the relation to the relation, the actual issue he is dealing with is the 2.
0- is nothing.
1 – is the universe. By definition, it is something as opposed to nothing. It is unitive and perfect, if given that nothing is flat, or not knowable = zero has no content.
2- admits the duality of knowledge. In as much as we may know of the universe existing by virtue of it not being nothing, we know of the Two.
3. Is multiple. From here, all permutation arises. Like the three-body problem, with the three comes the introduction of multiplicity. It is the first indication of Reality.
Hence, also we have with the Three the introduction of transcendence. And thus the possibility of mediation, the central Cartesian subject, the subject of science, and the withdrawn subject. It is in the Three that every form of religious and spiritual reckoning arise, due to the phenomenon of the thinking subject of transcendence.
Hence, the issue of the Three is actually the indication of bifurcation; the question: “Is communion with an aspect which is outside of Reality possible ?” Is operative. This is the central ontological question:
Is the mediation between two opposing elements? Such that the human being is the third element which then can commune with a Real God?
Is there no mediation, and reality itself Contains the Ideal Of communion as it’s operational mode?
In this last, the significant issue is thus found to be of the Two. Because the issue of the Three is unsolvable aside from mere subjective assertion of propriety (view, opinion). The issue of the Two changes the game by leaving the three as outside of solution, where the content of zero then remains in relation to the One, is therefore not flat and is knowable in possibility (0,1 or finitude) as opposed to infinity (multiple).