On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

Premise 1. A false dilemma is a dilemma where [at least one other option] can be given. You accept this.
Premise 2. The answer "neither" [could some day, with adequate reasoning] be given to the dilemma we are discussing. You accept this.
Conclusion: The dilemma we are discussing is a false one. You don't accept this.

I've corrected it for you. Your conclusion doesn't follow.

My bold and underline.

Regarding my bold:

You haven't corrected anything there. I said a false dilemma is a dilemma where the answer "neither" can be given. That is because it demonstrates that another option is available. Your so-called correction of me is saying the exact same thing I said.

I made your definition broader.

Regarding my underline:

No, it can be given.

The dilemma asks if it's true that the gods are good because they're good or if it's true that what is good is only good because it comes from the gods.

The dilemma is false because it ignores the possibility of "gods are neither good nor does goodness come from them."

I understand that, but since it's an atheistic argument against theistic morality your option is pointless. What's your motivation for proving an atheistic argument wrong with an atheistic conclusion? It's pure nonsense.

That is the definition of a false dichotomy. A true dichotomy would be "Are the gods good because they're good or not or is what is good only good because it comes from the gods or not?"

That would be a true dichotomy.

I fixed it.

Your correction doesn't add anything meaningful to the table, aside from being able to sneak in your pointless atheistic conclusion.