JWeinCom said:
Well, then I would disagree with their usage of the word, and if I were talking to one of them, we'd have to each clarify what we meant and come to an understanding. I would suggest that their usage of the word leads to confusion, and that we would be better off agreeing with the way I use it for the sake of clarity. But that's kind of irrelevant to this discussion. I have defined what I mean by it, and I can give you plenty of sources that define it in this way. So, that's the definition I'm using, and as far as I can tell, the way most if not all of the other atheists in this topic have been using it. As long as everyone in the conversation understands the meaning, that's all that is required. With that out of the way, I'd like to understand how your argument is valid when the conclusion does not follow the premises. |
Simple. The conclusion DOES follow the premises. The misunderstanding is that you need empirical proof for deductive argumentation. Deductive arguments are a form or argumentation. Just because other people doubt the validity of the conclusion it does not mean the argument is formally invalid.
