[EnderWiggins]

"Ah, but here is where you have applied the above premise. But presto-chango-re-arango now the meaning is that this causal change is an inescapable deduction of not only what we have observed...but of any possible Heavenly realm we have not. You have elevated an observed induction to a principle of deductive logic which is beyond question."

LOL... I have done no such thing.

I have simply used logic the only way it can be used. All deduction must begin with a premise or set of premises. Some premises are false, others are true, and the confidence we have in any of them can only be derived by some prior induction.

What you call my "modest" premise is something that you appear to explicitly agree with. Why then would you object even the tiniest bit if the premise should then serve for what actually is a rigorously deductive set of subsequent syllogism?

Rather than object to the reasoning, you pursue the (false) red herring that I have made some sort of logical leap in confidence. I have done no such thing. I have used an mutually agreed upon premise to then deductively reach a conclusion that is unassailable, if the premise is true.

If you're ready to actually address my position, then do so. If not, then just say so and move on.

[AndyTheBear]

Why then would you object even the tiniest bit if the premise should then serve for what actually is a rigorously deductive set of subsequent syllogism?

I object to the meaning of a premise being changed. For example consider this deduction:

Premise A) Banks are safe places to keep your money.

Premise B) The place by the side of the creek is a bank.

Conclusion: It is safe to keep your money by the creek.

Obviously this argument is fallacious. The problem is that we use the term "bank" to mean more than one thing. But if we were more objective we may have said:

Premise A-prime) Everything that could be called a bank, whether a financial institution or side of a creek is a safe place to keep your money.

Now in this case, premise A-prime is the one actually used to make the syllogism's conclusion valid. However we would not be able to get many people to accept this premise. Thus if we are devious, we could propose A and than imply A-prime to form our syllogism.

You have made this mistake a couple of times that I have pointed out, and I have spelled out the specifics already. I'm sorry that being wrong about what you are selling is hard to accept. Nobody likes it, including when it happens to me. Which is why I understand that you are resistant to accept this correction.