On Moral Authorities

[FallentoReason]

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?

I'm asking you to justify why it is neither. I'm not asking you to justify the logic of dichotomies. If I answered with my own option, 'squirrel', wouldn't you ask the same thing?

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?

Yes, yes I do, because I find that 'gods don't exist' is a weak justification.

The same equally applies to you.

I'm not the one saying the dilemma is false. I have no option c to justify. 

If gods don't exist then a question of their goodness is pointless.

To your mind. But realize that philosophy isn't about you.

 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.

*ding ding ding* you have objectively failed ethics 101. That is not at all what the dilemma is discussing. The problem of evil has it's own argument, it's called the Problem of Evil.

I'm not interested in the purpose of the dilemma

Which is why you're grossly misunderstanding how your reasoning fails.

until you give a consistent answer regarding whether you understand the definition of a false dilemma or not.

Yes, I understand, just like I understood yesterday and the day before.

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.

*bzzzzt* wrong.

I'm not going to budge until you stop contradicting yourself.

Never have. Start budging.

You've already done it again here now. You said "this is true" regarding the definition of a false dilemma

Yup.

and then you asked me to justify why it's false, lol!

Because I find the justification, that 'gods don't exist' boring, uninteresting, dull, uninsightful, meaningless.

It's false because you already admitted it is?

*bzzzzt* wrong.

And yet you continue to say it isn't?

Yup.

Consistency please.

Been getting it all along.

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?

Because only then will the nitty gritty be important. If you don't even understand the purpose of the dilemma, then why should I take your arguments seriously?