Again, you must have slept through your logic course. The truth or falsity of your premises has nothing to do with the validity of your argument -- the website you quoted me says just the same thing[1]. You clearly just don't understand what I'm saying about H2O and water -- it's
definitely controversial whether or not water is defined as H2O, or, if not, why has there been so much ink spilled over Twin Earth. Your ?point #1, again, just fails to get it. First, sure my premises might be wrong, but that's just saying I might be wrong about something's being logically impossible, NOT that something's being logically impossible isn't what I've been saying it is. If x is logically impossible, it is logically impossible. It's just a misuse of logic of the grossest sort to say "Even if it's logically impossible it might be possible, b/c you might be wrong about it's being logically impossible." Of course. But in that case, it's not logically impossible. Second, proving something to be logically impossible doesn't require premises. '4 = 5' is logically impossible. I can prove it just using definitions of 4 and 5, and I doubt I'm mistaken about what 4 and 5 mean. If you're not understanding what I'm saying, then I'm happy to try and explain it a different way. But don't try and pretend you understand when it's obvious you don't.
[1]From "The Atheism Web":
Quote:
|
Clearly you can build a valid argument from true premises, and arrive at a true conclusion. You can also build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a false conclusion.
|