It's of relevance to the -false- dichotomy since there is -at least- a third, unexpressed, option that negates any need to choose between the two on offer. Neither.

That's what it -means- for something to be a false dichotomy.

(November 14, 2016 at 11:46 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's of relevance to the -false- dichotomy since there is -at least- a third, unexpressed, option that negates any need to choose between the two on offer.  Neither.

That's what it -means- for something to be a false dichotomy.

Generally people disagree on a dichotomy when the dichotomy is contrasting two things that *aren't* in actual contrast, hence the false comparison. Euthyphro's Dilemma doesn't run into this problem because the logic is sound - is X because Y, or is Y because X? It's mutually exclusive.

"The logic" is -invalid-, that's what it means for something to be fallacious. OFC it presents two mutually exclusive propositions, all compelling false dichotomies do. That doesn't change their status as false dichotomies.

I'm not sure why you're even going to bat for this little bit of idiocy, it's only a dilemma for you god believing types, and even then only a dilemma for god believing types with a myopic view of both the good, and the divine, and even then, only for those who either don't understand or simply refuse to accept the necessity of a valid argument structure independent of ones beliefs. I'm surprised that you don't appreciate the help in responding. But, then, I guess you hit all three criteria, don't you, lol?

(November 14, 2016 at 11:44 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 14, 2016 at 9:30 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: It's a false dichotomy because both halves of the dichotomy imply a god.

That's of no actual relevance to the dichotomy.

This is the same problem you're having as the hypothetical thing...

The fact that the dichotomy and your hypothetical are being irrelevant and false is relevant. When there is irrelevance and falseness I point it out.

Instead of telling me that the flaws I pointed out are irrelevant how about admitting the flaws

You're basically admitting your hypothetical is an irrelevant flaw. Yes I agree there is no relevance. Your hypothesis has no relevance even to itself because it's incoherent

(November 15, 2016 at 12:49 pm)Rhythm Wrote: "The logic" is -invalid-, that's what it means for something to be fallacious. OFC it presents two mutually exclusive propositions, all compelling false dichotomies do. That doesn't change their status as false dichotomies.

I'm not sure why you're even going to bat for this little bit of idiocy, it's only a dilemma for you god believing types, and even then only a dilemma for god believing types with a myopic view of both the good, and the divine, and even then, only for those who either don't understand or simply refuse to accept the necessity of a valid argument structure independent of ones beliefs. I'm surprised that you don't appreciate the help in responding. But, then, I guess you hit all three criteria, don't you, lol?

Jesus Christ... let's burn all philosophy books, shall we?

I know you're a smart guy, but when you say that things like Kant/Euthyphro's Dilemma are wrong on (what sounds like) a prima facie level, I can't help but think you're not actually versed in proper philosophical thought. It's hard to take you seriously then, hence why I didn't reply earlier in the thread.

(November 15, 2016 at 2:27 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 14, 2016 at 11:44 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: That's of no actual relevance to the dichotomy.

This is the same problem you're having as the hypothetical thing...

The fact that the dichotomy and your hypothetical are being irrelevant and false is relevant. When there is irrelevance and falseness I point it out.

Instead of telling me that the flaws I pointed out are irrelevant how about admitting the flaws

You're basically admitting your hypothetical is an irrelevant flaw. Yes I agree there is no relevance. Your hypothesis has no relevance even to itself because it's incoherent

You've twisted my words. No, I definitely have not admitted my hypothetical is flawed.

You said it was the same problem I have with your hypothetical. And the problem I have with your hypothetical is that it's flawed. You twisted your own words by claiming to know mine and then not liking it when I told you what that entails.

(November 15, 2016 at 8:12 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You said it was the same problem I have with your hypothetical. And the problem I have with your hypothetical is that it's flawed. You twisted your own words by claiming to know mine and then not liking it when I told you what that entails.

By 'problem' I mean what Rhythm and I were seeing. You would refuse to entertain the hypothetical *as a hypothetical*.

(November 15, 2016 at 8:07 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Jesus Christ... let's burn all philosophy books, shall we?

You tell me, you're the one that keeps insisting that a false dichotomy is "sound" and "logical".  

Quote:I know you're a smart guy, but when you say that things like Kant/Euthyphro's Dilemma are wrong on (what sounds like) a prima facie level, I can't help but think you're not actually versed in proper philosophical thought. It's hard to take you seriously then, hence why I didn't reply earlier in the thread.

Whether or not you take me seriously, whether or not I;m a smart guy, and whether or not guys like euphyro or kant -said it- has nothing to do with whether or not it's a false dichotomy.  

Any proposition that insists on a person choosing between a or b when c (and d, and e) are all equally available is a false dichotomy.  That's what it means for something to be a false dichotomy.  A false dichotomy is an  informal logical fallacy, and fallacious arguments are invalid. 

But hey, don't take my word for it, howsabout you use the internet we all know you have and let wonder lead you to knowledge?

(November 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 15, 2016 at 8:12 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote: You said it was the same problem I have with your hypothetical. And the problem I have with your hypothetical is that it's flawed. You twisted your own words by claiming to know mine and then not liking it when I told you what that entails.

By 'problem' I mean what Rhythm and I were seeing. You would refuse to entertain the hypothetical *as a hypothetical*.

"The hypothetical" was not a hypothetical. The bare minimum for a hypothetical is that it obeys the law of identity A=A. Yours did not because you said it had none of 'our' (scare quotes intentional) logical laws.

TLOI is prior to a hypothetical not the other way around. You can't have even a tautological hypothetical without TLOI. Tautologies, hypotheticals and everything else is meaningless if A=A is not first presupposed. And 2+2=5 is another failure to presuppose it.

Your examples were failures that made your hypothetical so incoherent it wasn't even a hypothetical. Remove the examples and instead ask "If there was a hypothetical with different logical laws in addition to the law of identity would they be logical?" the answer is yes, because they're logical simply by being logical laws, regardless of if they are our laws or not. If they're logical laws they're laws that are logical. All the examples you gave violated absolute logical laws that apply to all possible and even hypothetical universes. They violated basic modal logic. Or rather--they were unable to violate it because nothing can violate A=A. What happens is you have a hypothetical that is incomplete and when you mention "the hypothetical in this thread" you're actually referring to a bunch of text that is an incomplete hypothetical. "If the law of identity was not possible then the law of identity wouldn't be possible" is not even a successful tautology because all tautologies themselves imply the law of identity. "The law of identity" can be replaced with "A" so the statement becomes "If A was not A then A would not be A" which is just incoherent bullshit. A has to be A. You can't even have a hypothetical universe where that hypothetical universe is not what that universe is and you can't even have a hypothetical universe where two things and two things are not four things because two things and two things are four things otherwise it's not two things and two things... if it's five things it's instead two things and three things or three things and two things. Doesn't fucking mattter what universe it is. Both your examples failed to violate the law of identity even when attempting to hypothesize so. It was a failed hypothetical and a failed violation of A=A and 2+2=4. "If it were possible in another universe then it would be possible in another universe" doesn't work because that statement itself is already obeying A=A and 2+2=4