"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.

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.  

Buy it and send it to my place and I'll gladly read it. Otherwise I'll assume it's just more misguided or misrepresented philosophy used to perpetuate poor logic in the face of scientific progress. I'm not going to do the research for you. 

I already read it and did a paper on it, and I can tell you they contain good arguments. But something tells me you're not going to take my word for it.

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.

You are again saying two contradictory things.

If it is a deductive argument that is indeed valid, then I could not accept the premises and deny the conclusion, unless I am myself being irrational, which doesn't seem to be what you're implying.

So, I'm going to go ahead and accept the five premises.  If I accept all of those as true, do I now have to believe that God exists as a necessary being?  If not, the conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises, and the argument is invalid. 

An argument can be valid in two ways. It can be formally valid, because it's a proper deductive argument. And it can be factually valid, because the premisses and conclusions are actually true.

That the cosmological argument is formally valid is not in question. The only question is if it is factually valid. Which I hold it is.

No, that the cosmological argument, as you have presented it, is formally valid is in question.  Because I'm questioning it. We have to establish that it is valid before we can even begin to address soundness (which correct me if I'm wrong seems to be what you mean by factually valid).  

So let, me repeat my question.  You seem to get quite irritated when you feel people do not respond to your argument, so please respond to my question.  It's a pretty simple yes or no question.

I'm going to accept the five premises.  If I do this, do I now have to conclude that God exists as a necessary being?

You're right, I won't take your word for it because nothing you've said in this thread gives me the impression that you are a reliable source. I'm saying send me a copy of the book so I can read it and determine for myself if the points are valid or not, I'm not going to spend my own money on a whim to read something suggested by someone whos viewpoints I do not respect.