Do you believe in God? Why/Why not?

[JWeinCom]

WolfpackN64 said:

JWeinCom said:

"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 failse.

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.

I first presented it as an inductive argument. Someone already pointed out to me that the form of the argument is usually deductive. I already stated that that was indeed the case. So this changes nothing.

"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."

This is why nobody understands you.  Because your language and logic are sloppy and contradictory.

You said before the conclusion did not necessarily follow the premises.  Now, you say it does.  Which is it?

You said before it was an inductive argument.  Then you just referred to it as a deductive argument.  Now you seem to be claiming again it is inductive (which is bizarre since I've never seen people use syllogisms in inductive arguments).  So which is it?

Edit:  I'd also like to quote myself when I said.  "We haven't established any sort of probability. As we have agreed the cosmological argument is deductive.  It is either true or false.  If we can't confirm or deny the argument, we can't make any claim about it's probability.   We can say it's not impossible, but that's about it."

As you did not dispute that it was deductive, I was pretty sure we agreed on that point.  If we didn't, this would have been a wonderful opportunity to clarify.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 11 September 2018