JWeinCom said:
"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. |
I'm still following along the deductive lines. I first started deductively, switched it to an inductive reasoning somewhere explaining the argument again. Granted, it was sloppy, but I believe I switched tracks when we started debating epistomology and knowledge. That was a sidetrack, I'm still seeing this as a deductive argument.
And yes, the conclusion does follow the premises. I only accepted people could not agree with the conclusion. Which does not make the argument invalid.
