| dsgrue3 said:
Can't recall your previous statement? Here, I'll show you: As for nonsense here, no it is not. I said his logic was based off a missing and (in my view) faulty premise. The premise wasn't missing anything. You don't seem to understand logic at all. Premise Substsantiating claims Deductions Conclusion You don't make multiple premises. As to the off topic item, I proved that you were incorrect as per my definition of existence. Clearly, you have selective memory. |
"a", not "the" missing premise.
You are incorrect and wrong here:
|
Premises are statements of (assumed) fact which are supposed to set forth the reasons and/or evidence for believing a claim. The claim, in turn, is the conclusion: what you finish with at the end of an argument. When an argument is simple, you may just have a couple of premises and a conclusion:
1. Doctors earn a lot of money. (premise) 2. I want to earn a lot of money. (premise) 3. I should become a doctor. (conclusion) Source: http://atheism.about.com/od/logicalarguments/a/argument.htm |
^From an atheist site thank you very much.
You were simply wrong in the other thread, but wow my mind is blown that you think you were correct in the end.
I was saying that your definition of existence was false, and I proved myself right by challenging your definition. Period.
