On Moral Authorities

[Edwardo Piet]

My bold.

I thought you said that you know a false dichotomy is a dichotomy where the answer "neither" could be the case?

This is true.

If you accept it is true then asking me to justify it when it's a tautology is utter nonsense. Do you not realize that?

The dilemma is false, remember, simply because "neither" can be given as an answer.

So can "squirrel" be given as an answer. Both of these won't fly until you justify. And we've already been through your justification, which fails, because 'gods don't exist' won't be taken seriously by anyone.

I'm giving you a defintion and you accept it and then you want me to justify it? The same equally applies to you.

If gods don't exist then a question of their goodness is pointless. That is not the purpose of the dilemma. The purpose of the dilemma is to get theists to have to wrestle with the problem of evil. I'm not interested in the purpose of the dilemma until you give a consistent answer regarding whether you understand the definition of a false dilemma or not.

Do you know what a false dilemma is or not?

You're leagues behind. This isn't the point of contention.

You can't even get past step 1. Yes it is a point of contention whilst you continue to parrot "it's not a false dilemma" after already saying it is one. I'm not going to budge until you stop contradicting yourself. You've already done it again here now. You said "this is true" regarding the definition of a false dilemma and then you asked me to justify why it's false, lol! It's false because you already admitted it is? And yet you continue to say it isn't?

Consistency please.

You're more interested in scoring points than accuracy and being correct. This is why you would rather continue to contradict yourself than admit you're wrong about something petty. If you can't even be consistent and stop contradicting yourself about something petty why should I bother you with the big stuff?