Maybe google “false dichotomy” as that seems to be what the person who doesn’t want to choose is claiming to be a fallacy in the reasoning of the person offering a choice. Should be some discussion of when that particular claim doesn’t apply — which is what you seem to be looking for.

Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming — Jon Sendama

Shrug. I don’t think there’s much joy in obsessing over fallacies and certainly not this burden-of-proof thing people get exercised about when debating online. Most philosophical arguments are informal and persuasive. If I tell you there are only two options, I should want to persuade you I’m right about that. What’s the point of not doing so?

:up:

False n-lemma

Is god pink, or is god yellow? Pick one.

Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party?

Do you, don't you, want me to make you?

Et tu, Brute?

"Mankind is at the point in history when we have to choose between two paths: one leading to certain doom, the other, to complete annihilation. I hope we have the wisdom to choose the right one." -- Woody Allen: the opening lines of his keynote speech at the Harvard graduating ceremony.

The person in question refused to accept that you must either believe God/s exist is more likely, or no God/s exist is more likely, or you believe that the likelihood of Gods existence is perfectly balanced.

He refused to tell me which he believed on the claim of false dichotomy, but refused to offer any reason why there should be another option. He just said it's a false dichotomy and he doesn't have to respond because I can't prove there are only 3 options.

The person in question refused to accept that you must either believe God/s exist is more likely, or no God/s exist is more likely, or you believe that the likelihood of Gods existence is perfectly balanced. — Jon Sendama

Yeah, okay.

Here’s the thing: “... is God” just isn’t like any other predicate, and neither is “... exists”. If you’re hoping to deal with this situation by appealing to straightforward logic, you’re out of luck. That you can cast the issue in numerical terms makes no difference, I’m sorry.

Yes, for any two values between 0 and 1, they’re equal or one is greater than the other. It’s a ways from there to belief formation or belief attribution. It’s especially far if it’s not clear how anyone could derive the values to be compared. I just don’t think the usual ways of putting a number on it are much use here, so there’s no point to this analysis. (For instance, suppose you want to set your prior for God existing to the baseline, how commonly universes were created by God — how you gonna do that?)

Formal methods are swell where they apply. You don’t get to assume they apply always and everywhere.

f a person argues that there seems to be just to options to pick from, ie heavier than or lighter than or more likely or less likely, and invites his opponent to pick one, and the opponent says "i don't need to pick one because you have not proven there are only these options", what is that fallacy? — Jon Sendama

In the instance where you relegate your opponent to only two choices, that would be considered a logical fallacy called a loaded question. It's not necessarily a logical fallacy to not entertain a misinterpreted or a biased hypothetical. At least, not when you're trying to win an argument.

I really struggle to see that. As far as I know, a loaded question is a question containing a presupposition that isn't justified. "When did you stop hitting your wife?". I don't see how it's an unjustified presupposition to assume someone believes something is more likely, less likely, or equally likely. AFAIK objections must have grounds and you'd demonstrate the grounds by showing how there could be another answer, not just claiming there could be. You'd have to show how it's biased. If not, then anyone can forever avoid answering anything or accepting any conclusion either by saying it's biased or unproven, but not caring to describe how.

Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming, — Jon Sendama

The idea is that in argumentation, the one who presents the scenario that there's only two options/choices has the burden to avoid the fallacious argument of false dichotomy. You're not supposed to present a scenario where you artificially limit the choices of another to force them to answer one of only two ways.

However, if there really are only two choices, you still need to present your argument in such a way as no one really has more than two choices. An example of this is dead or alive. There really isn't a half-dead, or half-alive, or another state in which a human being can be cast.

you must either believe — Jon Sendama

Invoking logical nomenclature is useful in its place, but the problem with your statement isn’t about what else you could believe, but about whether you must believe anything. One can have no beliefs with respect to god (or anything else). In some cases, one might call such a position “agnosticism”. When you insist that you must believe “a, b, c, or not a,” and demand someone offer beliefs “e” or “f” as the only alternative to your insistence, you can say that your argument suffers from a number of informal fallacies, but the vastly more important thing is for you to recognize why your insistence is in error.

You make consider ideas like evidentialism useful to your exploration of the theme, but you might also find that a better framework for thinking about beliefs (whether you must have them, what causes them to arise, etc.) more interesting. Take a look at SEP’s article on the ethics of belief.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-belief/

So, with your responses in mind I am thinking that I could just hack through the issue by seperating the questions.

Do you believe it's more likely than not that God/s exists?
Do you believe it's more likely than not that no God/s exist?

This way, I cannot be seen to be limiting their choice or assuming they have one belief, as there is no implication that i've presupposed there are only two options. The real issue is that "or".

Right?

"When did you stop hitting your wife?". I don't see how it's an unjustified presupposition to assume someone believes something is more likely, less likely, or equally likely. — Jon Sendama

Well in the event where your opponent is being deliberately dense, I think it would be called an appeal to ignorance.

RIght, surely it would be! He is arguing that his argument is true (it is not proven) with no argument other than it hasn't been proven that there aren't any alternatives but those three. Is that what you had in mind?

An implied or can do just as much work as an express one. Be careful that they understand that discussing evidence of G is separate from discussing evidence of ~G. If they understand from go that any question about G supports your claim of ~G, you won’t get far.

Here is a related type argument: Russell’s tea pot. Notice the contrast of agnosticism as to a particular belief in or belief in not. We can functionally act as if not in the absence of compelling evidence for, but that doesn’t mean we have to actively believe not. Why commit to a position for which you have no evidence and which, in principle, you cannot have such evidence.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

A good question OP as far as I'm concerned. What bothers me is that being in the dark about other (unmentioned) alternatives has rather unsettling implications on the natural deduction rule by the name Disjunctice Syllogism (vide infra).

1. p v q
2. ~p
Ergo,
3. q [1, 2 Disjunctive Syllogism]

What if p v q v (hidden alternatives).

The OP seems quite concerned about choice (OR).

Since a binary option such as r v s can be rephrased, unmolested, as ~r $\rightarrow$ s, the question that's natural and, simultaneously, thought-provoking, is what is choice? Free will, what's that?

Why do I ask?

Simple...

1. If God exists then, heaven is real
2. God exists
Ergo,
3. Heaven is real. (1, 2 Modus Ponens)

No one, I'm quite certain, realizes that s/he is actually making a choice (God doesn't exist OR Heaven is real) when s/he is basically doing exactly that!

See anything interesting? That's all I have for now.

Maybe this would help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G40OEBuIZdM

With Russels teapot and that whole line of argument that atheists do as part of claiming non belief, I say I am happy to believe there is not a teapot orbiting in space. I believe it isn't true on the basis that the teapot wouldn't be a good explanation for anything, and it's entirely arbitrarily imagined. We can arbitrarily imagine an infinite number of things while reality is finite, and so such a teapot is unlikely. I ask this atheist if he is capable of believing that there are not sentient cucumbers on the planet Zog that worship his every move, or that he does not have an invisible pink dragon that sings him sweet lullabies each night. Because of how atheists try and justify their non belief, they must also have no belief about anything plainly ludicrous so long as there is no "evidence" (meaning, evidence they would accept, as in natural) against it, and so their position is irrational.

I don't know what you mean by G and ~G. God and about God? I've not been through formal philosophy education.

Sorry, i'd love to be able to comment because your point sounds interesting, but I am not philosophically educated. I am only capable of understanding in words.

Is that what you had in mind? — Jon Sendama

Yeah pretty much.

↪john27 An implied or can do just as much work as an express one. Be careful that they understand that discussing evidence of G is separate from discussing evidence of ~G. If they understand from go that any question about G supports your claim of ~G, you won’t get far.

Here is a related type argument: Russell’s tea pot. Notice the contrast of agnosticism as to a particular belief in or belief in not. We can functionally act as if not in the absence of compelling evidence for, but that doesn’t mean we have to actively believe not. Why commit to a position for which you have no evidence and which, in principle, you cannot have such evidence. — Ennui Elucidator

I'll be honest, I haven't a clue about what you just said. Care to tone it down?

So, with your responses in mind I am thinking that I could just hack through the issue by seperating the questions.

Do you believe it's more likely than not that God/s exists?
Do you believe it's more likely than not that no God/s exist?

This way, I cannot be seen to be limiting their choice or assuming they have one belief, as there is no implication that i've presupposed there are only two options. The real issue is that "or". — Jon Sendama

Yes, you can say that. This is called modality. When you present an inquiry or a problem this way, you are implying the modal auxiliaries.

Sorry, i'd love to be able to comment because your point sounds interesting, but I am not philosophically educated. I am only capable of understanding in words. — Jon Sendama

Try picturing stuff! I suffer from aphantasia too if that's what ails you.

If a person argues that there seems to be just to options to pick from, ie heavier than or lighter than or more likely or less likely, and invites his opponent to pick one, and the opponent says "i don't need to pick one because you have not proven there are only these options", what is that fallacy?

Surely it's their burden to demonstrate that their objection has grounds by showing that there could be other options, rather than just claiming, but i've ran in to this countless times and I don't feel I am very effective at dealing with it. Can anyone explain it more effectively than I have, or direct me to a resource that I can just send people to, to show that my logic is correct? — Jon Sendama

What are you, this person's boss?

I am not philosophically educated. — Jon Sendama

Then you should get thusly educated.

How do you know that you're right and they're wrong? You seem blindly confident

......what is that fallacy? — Jon Sendama

I would say it is not a fallacy. It is a challenge to show that the options presented are exhaustive. To do that, you need to show that denying both entails a contradiction. Exhaustive options are not usually available outside maths or formal logic.

Do you agree with what I just wrote or not? I don't want to hear 'Partly' or 'Yes, but...' or 'No, if...' But of course those are appropriate responses. You might agree with some of it and not with all of it.

False Dichotmomy. There may in fact be many other options, but your interlocutor is arbitraily limiting your options so as to have you percieve and integrate those limitations, effectively influencing you to operate under those parameters.