By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 11 September 2018
Edit Thread
WolfpackN64 said:
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.

"To start, don't give me logic 101, I study moral scienced, logic is part of my curriculum. You nicely explained how deductive reasoning works, you kind of forgot inductive and abductive reasoning, which the argument uses. The argument's premises can very well be true and the conclusion false. The latter part we don't know. So the argument stands, once again. Don't try to give me deductive reasoning 101 again, it's just not applicable here. If we had a deductive reasoning, this wouldn't be a debate."

This is you claiming that the argument was not a deductive argument, and that the argument's premises can be true and the conclusion false.

Now you are claiming this is a deductive argument.  If that is true, then what you said earlier, that the premises can be true and the conclusion false, makes it BY DEFINITION an invalid argument.  That is before we even have to worry about whether the conclusions are actually proven or not.