Modified Pascal’s Wager. First, switch hell with God. Second, expand [set of God] to include all possible expressions of [God concept]. …

A modified Pascal’s Wager works for my agnosticism.

Pascal spoke of “cost of belief < cost of hell” to put it simply.

Here’s my take:

First, switch hell with God. Second, expand [set of God] to include all possible expressions of [God concept].

Now, you may think that it’s too open to be useful. But it’s not overly broad : it’s just a very large set. Now, to make it worse for you, from that perspective, you start from the [set of all possible expressions of God concept], to includes those things not labeled [God] but express similar characteristics of [some subset within [set of all possible God concepts]] to allow for metaphorical God-like concepts. Substitute Gods.

Well, damn that’s just too much isn’t it? it’s not.

For example, can you say “mathematics is God”?

You can’t. If you do, you’ve left mathematics and formed a religion based upon mathematics because you’ve given God-like properties to mathematics.

What I’m doing here should be very annoying to you right now.

But the process is fundamentally an Apophatic process.

What I am left with from this process is “I don’t know”.

The reason I do not go in the other more common direction is this:

“Let’s start with nothing. Onto that nothing, let us define these terms.”

The nothing-space containing the set of all possible nothings is, to me, equivalent to the God-concept space containing the set of all possible God-concepts.

We don’t think of the nothing-space because it’s axiom.

But I think of such things.

How does this relate to Pascal’s Wager?

My cost of being accurate but imprecise < cost of being precise but inaccurate.

If you’ve followed me thus far, I give you a metaphorical cookie.


Awesome :) That’s what I like to do too.

a) Start with Everything
b) Narrow it down from there.


No, I think you get it just fine. I find it easier to work with.

It’s starting with an unlimited block of marble and chopping away what doesn’t belong.

What you know is the bits that were chipped away. What you don’t know is what’s left over. Is that God? Damned if I know.

Meanwhile, all those little chips of marble on the floor are pretty useful and we can build other stuff with them.


ok, that wasn’t the best analogy. It’s an odd concept for us to grasp because we’re trained to start with a tabla rosa.


Indeed they do! Interestingly, I’ve heard of more than a few sculptors talk about the stone letting them know what to do next. [because stone has its own internal breaking points and such].

I imagine it’s a very engaging experience – a conversation between creator and material.



Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 × five =

Leave a Reply