Originally Posted by SilentScope001
Neither do I believe that it is extermist to align yourself with one side or another, but there is also no evidence that the two answers are in fact correct (that God exist or that God does not exist). It is possible that both people are wrong, that the rock is neither limestone nor granite, but rather alien rock or something else enteirly. After all, how smart are those people? Are they really intelligent enough to decide what the rock is? Or it is possible that both people who claim God exist and God does not exist are wrong: God may exist but is so weak that he supposed to be laughed upon.
There is no logical reason why it has to either be "x" or "y". Presenting a false delimma is itself a logical fallacy. That doesn't mean that a combination of x and y must be right, it is probraly stupid to think that way. But it could. Or prehaps z might be correct.
The definitions of the words we are using don't change during an argument, however. If a rock fits the definition of limestone, then it is limestone. If it doesn't, then it's simply not limestone. The definition of god is more interesting because monotheists generally regard a definition of him as including such terms as "omnipotent, omniscient" etc. If the entity being talked about did not fit these definitions, then it would not be God, whatever its other attributes may be. An entity that is so weak to be laughed at simply is not God, because that would contradict the definition. Were any theists to compromise on the matter and say that God isn't omnipotent - just VERY powerful - then they just wouldn't be talking about the same God anymore (and they'd have to start the argument over again). So yes, I would say that God either exists as it is defined - typically as that of the Christian god - or it does not, and to pick one side of this argument is still not extremism, nor is it a false dilemma.
I liked those TQ links, SS. Thanks.