Algebra is hypothetical until it is applied. — Cavacava

There is a reason I called it unfalsifiable.

Is there any other kind? :D — aletheist

For me yes; however, I don't know if you are able to a make that leap.

Not only does it suppose A1 is better than A2, but it also supposes only " two possible actions".

To limit it down to only two, well that is a lot of supposing.

What do you take to be an example of a non-imaginary hypothetical?

When you take the hypothetical and move it to a fact via the scientific method.

Which is my dispute here, Cavacava's hypothesis cannot be moved, as it is unfalsifiable.

From Wikipedia:

In the year 399, Xenophon was soldiering with the Greek mercenary army of the Ten Thousand (cf. Anabasis); hence was not in Athens for the trial of Socrates

According to Plato in his Phaedo there were several people. This dialogue is one recollection of what happened, according to dialogue Plato was sick.

According to Plato in his Phaedo there were several people. This dialogue is one recollection of what happened, according to dialogue Plato was sick. — Cavacava

I am sure I said this, "And that part about Socrates and death was before his execution, it was when Xenophon was trying to talk him into escape."

I could dig out my books and quote Xenophon, but I think that is really just a diversion form the fact that you whole argument is nothing but a suppose-it-were-this-way.

So the issue is not that the hypothesis is imaginary - which technically is true of all retroductive conjectures - but that it is unfalsifiable; i.e., it does not have experiential consequences that we can explicate deductively and then evaluate inductively. Thanks for clarifying.

Maybe you can provide a reference, I thought he was out of town throughout this period.

"Move a hypothetical to a fact?"

Facts aren't states of affairs in your usage?

So the issue is not that the hypothesis is imaginary - which technically is true of all retroductive conjectures - but that it is unfalsifiable — aletheist

I believe that should be overly clear by now, that was like the first thing I said. I know you wanted to feel clever, but instead of trying to be clever, try reading everything a person posted.

When I want to feel cleaver, I make sure I'm sharp. Well, or alternately, I just focus on beaver, which I often do anyway.

When I want to feel cleaver, I make sure I'm sharp. Well, or alternately, I just focus on beaver, which I often do anyway. — Terrapin Station

Fixed.

Let me get this straight: Not one person here can address the fact it is unfalsifiable, all they can do is play games?

No that does not sound right. The worst outcome with A1 is oblivion, no god, no eternal bliss, no nothing. The only outcome from A2 is oblivion, eternal nothing. — Cavacava

I've been reading through this thread and find it astonishing that you keep making this claim. It has been pointed out to you several times that the, or one of the, fundamental flaws in this argument has to do with the multiplicity of mutually opposed conceptions of the word "God." Is God triune? Has he revealed himself to the Jewish people? To the New Testament writers? To Muhammad? One, two, all three, or none of the above? Is he "Nature," as Spinoza would say? Is he Brahman, Zeus, Thor, or Amun-Ra? Can God even be adequately defined? Many classical theists would say no.

Simply put, there is no single, unambiguous definition of "God," so to believe in it/him in no way guarantees salvation. Besides, salvation in most religions requires sincerity of belief, which the wager does not require.

What you are in fact saying is, "it is better to believe in my conception of God, in order to obtain my conception of salvation, which is a result of said belief." And that is much less rational than you have supposed in light of what I say above.

Do you think that the existence or non-existence of god can be proved? If the answer is no then whether you believe in god or not is a belief which cannot be logically justified. Yet many people believe in god. I think most people at some point in their lives make a decision to believe or not, but a number of them change their minds when death looms in front of them. This is not about how rational or irrational this belief is in itself. It is about how someone assigns value to concepts how they view the utility of concepts like a Good God.

the fundamental flaws in this argument has to do with the multiplicity of mutually opposed conceptions — Thorongil

He/she does not want to address that, as it undermines his/her position

.

... trying reading everything a person posted. — Jeremiah

Who has time for that? Lighten up, I was just attempting to inject a little humor; I even included a smiley in an effort to make that clear. Here, let me do it again ... :D

Not one person here can address the fact it is unfalsifiable, all they can do is play games? — Jeremiah

Just because a proposed supposition is unfalsifiable does not render it useless. Philosophers invent absurd scenarios "for the sake of argument" all the time. If we knew that we only had two options, A1 and A2, and that "the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2," then obviously the rational choice is A1. However, as many have pointed out, in the actual world there are considerably more than two options - all the different concepts of God, for one thing - and the outcomes associated with them are far from certain.

Just because a proposed supposition is unfalsifiable does not render it useless — aletheist

Again: read the thread.

How about reading the rest of my post?

I have read it at least 5 times.

Agree or disagree?

If we knew that we only had two options, A1 and A2, and that "the worst outcome associated with A1 is at least as good as the best outcome associated with A2," then obviously the rational choice is A1 — aletheist

This is what is in dispute here.

However, as many have pointed out, in the actual world there are considerably more than two options - all the different concepts of God, for one thing - and the outcomes associated with them are far from certain. — aletheist

In part this, but not so much for me.

The "if" is the part I am disputing.

I mean, who really thinks it is a good idea to dictate their core beliefs on what-ifs? I need something more substantial.

Disputing how? The hypothetical is stipulative; given that we only have two options, and that one will always have an equal or better outcome, there can be no doubt that it is the rational choice. The problem is that we actually have more than two options and no objective way to evaluate which will have the best outcome, so there is no definitively rational choice in the absence of additional information. What am I missing?

What am I missing? — aletheist

hypothetical — aletheist

That is like my entire argument. . . .

You can enumerate hypotheticals all day long, but just because you did, that does not make it a rational choice for a belief.