Deism, an intellectually serious position in previous centuries, now must reject scientific explanations

[Wiploc]

Back in post 106, you say the argument is valid, but now you're saying they left out a premise? Can both be true?

Yes, both can be true, because the test for the worth of an argument is not its validity, but its soundness. An argument can be valid even if its premises are bullshit and the argument is enthymemetic.

I'm confused. How can an argument be valid if it leaves out premises?

 

[pood]

I'm confused. How can an argument be valid if it leaves out premises?

An argument is valid if the conclusion follows from the STATED premises. As I said, it does not matter if the stated premises are bullshit or if there are hidden premises. The test for validity is simply whether the conclusion follows from the stated premises. The examining of the premises and the uncovering of any hidden premises is what you do when you are checking to see whether a valid argument is also a sound argument.

 

[Learner]

Did you define "nature"?

Or begin or universe or god?

There wasn't one for 'real' either.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

We can't understand unless we accept falsehoods as true?

The behavior is its own truth.

A cowbird lays its eggs in another birds nest and the parent raises the cowbird chick, sometimes at the expense of its own offspring. The cowbird isn't being dishonest. Neither is a bald eagle being dishonest when its hunting strategy is to observe another eagle making a catch and then stealing the catch by brute force. Humans act no differently. Humans are acting in an environment in which they are trying to survive and are in competition with other organisms. When we get together to make laws there will always be those who for various reasons try to cheat those laws or change those laws so they can personally benefit.

I can use the laws to get a survival edge or I can not use the laws or can try to change the laws to get that edge. No one is being dishonest.

 

[Wiploc]

I've lied, and I've been lied to. Lots of people are dishonest. It happens all the time.

Your argument--if I understand it--is that because people have justifications and/or rationalizations for lying, therefore we shouldn't call it dishonesty.

I hope I haven't misrepresented your position. That was my best guess as to what you were trying to say. If I got it wrong, I'd like you to explain what you were really saying.