A Game Theory take on the question of God’s Existence.

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.

But wait…

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).

Author: landzek

My name is Lance Kair, a philosopher, a counselor and a musician who is being questioned.

8 thoughts on “A Game Theory take on the question of God’s Existence.”

    1. It wasn’t so much a review of RPO as I made mocking reference of it; I doubt you read it as it wasn’t in my blog but part of my professional writing. It was part of a broader essay I had written in defense of the ever-dwindling discipline of the humanities and how the humanities are a repository of culture and shallow books and cosmetic films like RPO which are now considered the repositories of culture are anything but!

      But the whole premise of RPO is part of this broader movement to transhumanism and virtual reality which I’m innately skeptical of! I’m one of the last genuine humanists I know. I revel and defend the glorious messiness and imperfectness of homo sapien. :p


  1. I’m gonna send a request into word press, except I can’t find how to send word press feedback. I know I did it before but now I can’t find it anywhere !

    Because, we should be able to search for our own posts, not only with in our own blog as administrators but when we go to someone else’s blog we should be able to search for particular post within their blog.

    My blog is about five years old now and there are sometimes where I want to go back and read my old post from like five years ago. And it’s really difficult to do that – I don’t know if you’ve found also.

    And then like, you’re talking about your review of ready player one. How the hell am I supposed to find that post? Because I feel like I read it along time ago when you posted it but I don’t remember and so I want to go back and see.

    Maybe you know something that I don’t.

    But I found no way to easily locate my own posts, nor someone else’s


  2. As someone who holds a B.A. in economics, and who studied game theory in a sixteen week seminar, you could say I’m very familiar with the ins and outs of game theory though I don’t really put into practical use my economics degree! =/

    Though game theory suffers from what the entire discipline of economics suffers from, minus heterodox schools like Austrian economics, the rationality of man!

    As for Ready Player One, well, I criticized both the novel and film in an essay I published more than six months ago now. Haha.


  3. Pascal’s Wager highlights the broader epistemic problems between rationalism and empiricism. Contrary to illiterate people, mostly in science, belief in God is entirely rational. Pascal’s Wager shows this by the sharp dichotomy of the two ends presented. While belief in God may be extremely rational, the empiricist asks whether there is any empirical evidence for this. Catholic empirical theology, perhaps best represented by Aquinas, tries to do so with the five proofs — especially the argument from causality. But as Hume argued, you can take the same empirical starting premises and not get the same answer.

    This is all rather basic epistemic 101 issues in philosophy and theology. “Reason” is not the same as rationalism or empiricism, and neither do rationalism or empiricism have the same concept of reason. Rationalism employs ratiocinative reason while empiricism often employs cognitive reason. Pascal’s wager utilizes the former and not the latter.


    1. Not that I know much about game theory, but The game theory idea is based in mutual benefit rather than winning.

      Kierkegaard’s notion, though, was in the possibility of reason arguing the fallacy of reasons ability to know God. Where reason fails for itself, so to speak, fails to be able to procure an effective understanding of God, there does reason reaches God.

      It’s funny in thinking about it right now, Kierkegaard’s position was more about mutual benefit then it was about winning God’s favor or winning the true understanding of God it’s funny in thinking about right now, Kierkegaard‘s position was more about mutual benefit then it was about winning God’s favor for winning the true understanding of God. I suppose that’s what’s really ironic; which he says it somewhere, that you win by losing, so far as reason.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s