I already said to keep your fuckin arguments to yourself, it seems you didn't get the point. Let me be more clear: If you stand to deny a vast body of scientific data, then you are a god damn quack and you need to go somewhere that is accepting of quacks and holy-fools. — Garrett Travers

"Keep your fuckin arguments to yourself", hmm, sounds a little rude to me. Also somewhat against the spirit of philosophy, which is all about making arguments. I think you need to find a science forum where you can exchange scientific pronouncements and not argue for anything at all. I don't think Epicurus would like you very much - he made arguments. And it is those arguments that philosophers discuss to this day, such as his argument for the harmlessness of death, his 'problem of evil' challenge to theism, and his argument for indeterminism. But you're not interested in arguments, are you? Science! THere are people using metal detectors to find metal, and they're really good at finding metal with them, therefore everything is made of metal. Everything. And until or unless you can show me that something not made of metal is detectable by the metal detector, I will not believe that anything other than metal exists! And anything detectable by the metal detector is metal. So everything is metal.

That which does not exist leaves no evidence behind to analyze except the absence of evidence itself. — Garrett Travers

Well, I am printing that on a t-shirt right away! That's not the Epicurean paradox, but meh. The Epicurean paradox is also known as the problem of evil. It's not a very good argument, but he was the first to make it. And it is not an appeal to absence of evidence. Far from it, it is an attempt to show that God's existence is positively incompatible with the existence of evil. Although it too comes in two forms: the evidential and the logical.

I do not any longer consent to a discussion with you. I desire no further interaction.

Assuming continuation of life after death, what leads you to believe that the conditions of that existence will be worse?

Because death is a harm. If death improves our condition, then it is not a harm. If death is nothing, then it is not a harm. If death makes our condition worse, then it is a harm and we have reason to avoid it - and that is clearly the case, for the reason of virtually everyone confirms that death is a great harm. So great we use it as the most severe punishment. So great it is only if you are in agony with no prospect of it ending that you have reason to opt for death. We can reasonably conclude then that life after death is worse than life before it by some margin.

No, best not discuss Epicurus with someone who knows about him and is able to show him to be a poor reasoner, albeit an ingenious one.
But arguments, it seems, do not interest you.

No, best not discuss Epicurus with someone who knows about him and is able to show him to be a poor reasoner, albeit an ingenious one.
But arguments, it seems, do not interest you. — Bartricks

I'm going to offer this once, and only once. I will continue engaging with your arguments only on the stipulation that you issue not even a single more insult to me as a result of not liking the fact of the strength of my positions.

You have not demonstrated the truth of your conclusion. Epicurus accurately described the nature of experience as far as being sourced from an organ, and that once that organ has perished it no longer experiences anything. Upon further research, it has come to my attention that when using the translated word "harm," Epicurus was intending it as we would use the term"bad," in modern English. And "bad," specifically regarding an ethical valence. So, no, he was not talking about injury, or pain. Now, present to me an argument, keep your insults to yourself, and let's get on with philosophy.

If violations of the Human Consciousness are occuring within our purview, then perhaps such action is on the table, but the acknowledgement of such an obligation would need to uniformly consensual, and rationally planned to the absolute best of our ability. — Garrett Travers

If everyone would live an Epicurean (or Stoic, I would say) life most if not all our problems would be resolved. But most of us won't. That we should be free to live such a life is clear; that others (not just the government, but other people) should be free to prevent us from living such a life by living however they see fit isn't at all clear, to me. Legal rights which protect our freedom, and ability, to live a tranquil, wise, virtuous life are desirable. Legal rights which allow others to restrict that freedom, or limit or extinguish our ability to live that life, are not.

It's a conundrum I struggle with more and more in these dark times.

So you reason like this: materialism is true because science. Epicurus was a materialist. Therefore Epicurus is correct. Epicurus is a good philosopher because science. Epicurus says some things I agree with because they sound sciencey and, er, science! My argument is science.

Now, put down your microscope and turn on your reason and try - try - and do some philosophy.

This is Epicurus's argument (one of them):

1. To be harmed at a time t1, you need to exist at time t1.
2. When our death occurs we no longer exist
3. Therefore, our death will not harm us.

That's valid but unsound, as its conclusion is manifestly false.

If you think its conclusion is true, then you think killing someone does not harm them. So punching you would be a more harmful thing to do to you than killing you. If you are about to stub your toe and I can prevent that by killing you, then that would bein your best interests. That is stupider than a stupid thing on stupid day, is it not?

If the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false, then at least one premise of that argument is false. If it helps, read that via a microscope, as then it would be scientific as you observed it using an instrument of science.

Which one is false? Epicurus's claim that harm requires an existent harmee? No, that one seems self evidently true. So, the other one then.

Again, look down the microscope at this: if 1 or 2 is false, and 1 is true, then 2 is false.

But how can 2 be false if some scientists who don't understand the boundaries of their own discipline or expertise think it is true? How can that be? How could Garret be wrong. It doesn't make sense, does it? How could you be wrong? How could Epicurus be? If one has a worldview held on faith, then it's true and if careful reasoning suggests otherwise then so much the worse for careful reasoning.

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence

That you cannot reconcile the conclusion with your worldview is 'your' problem, not evidence the conclusion is false.

If everyone would live an Epicurean (or Stoic, I would say) life most if not all our problems would be resolved. — Ciceronianus

Epicurean societies are literally the societies that humans claim to be seeking as a matter of regular expression, and fact. It is exactly the kindof society that would have been implemented if the filthy mystic warlords of the world had no murdered them and bastardized their methods. Epicurus, I assert, is literally the man who almost saved the world, and the most important figure in the history of philosophy, and I will debate the truth of that proposition with any number of people, for any reason, any time, any place.

That we should be free to live such a life is clear; that others (not just the government, but other people) should be free to prevent us from living such a life by living however they see fit isn't at all clear, to me. — Ciceronianus

Is it easier to accept that other people are your property if only you have the might to enforce such a violation, or live the life of the philosopher by choice? That is the essence of things, the answer to that question.

Legal rights which protect our freedom, and ability, to live a tranquil, wise, virtuous life are desirable. — Ciceronianus

Legal rights are only an element of reality because of the answer to the above stated question. Epicurean societies, and by proxy their non-bullshit copy-cats, did and do not have governments. And didn't and don't need any. Government is the most destructive lie ever told to the Human Being, backed only by a lie of almost equal magnitude in terms of absolute horseshit: religion and/or mysticism.

Legal rights which allow others to restrict that freedom, or limit or extinguish our ability to live that life, are not. — Ciceronianus

The only legitimate legality, is the enforcement of non-enforcement. The eradication of violations upon the Human Consciousness on pain of the application of force and ostracism. No other legitimate justification exists, by definition.

It's a conundrum I struggle with more and more in these dark times. — Ciceronianus

You struggle with witnessing the violations of Human Consciousness on a regular basis. Not the need for that to end. The kicker is understanding what constitutes a violation of the Human Consciousness. The answer is tautological, as all true propositions are: Only violations of Human Consciousness are violations of Human Consciousness. All actions a human can possibly perform are his/her entitlement, as long as they do not impede the exact same liberty on the part of others. No further exploration irequired, except that which is internally deduced in the pursuit of individual virtue and homeostasis.

Epicurus's most influential argument was this one:

1. If God exists, evil wouldn't exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore God does not exist

But it is not very good because premise 1 is false.

Epicurus, like so many others subsequently, thought 1 was true because he reasoned that a good person would want to eliminate evil, and an omniscient person would know when evil was going to occur, and an omnipotent person would be able to eliminate it. As God has all three properties, no evil should occur if God exists.

But a good person would not eliminate evil by doing evil themselves, for that would not be elimination at all. So assume that God exists and some evil people exist too. God did not create them, they just exist alongside God. What would God do? Eliminate those people? But that would be evil. So no, he would not do that.

Would he know that they were going to do evil? No, not unless he peered into their minds and read their thoughts. But that would be an evil thing to do, as evil as setting up a camera in their bathroom. So he wouldn't know they were evilly disposed until or unless they acted in an evil manner.

And would he prevent them from doing evil? Well how, if he doesn't know they're going to do it?

The existence of evil is, then, entirely compatible with the existence of God and Epicurus once more reveals himself to be a bit of an idiot.

"But science! Science has shown that God does not exist. And Epicurus thought that too. So he's right. And you're wrong. And microscopes and Hadron colliders show you are. So there. Science rules."

So you reason like this: materialism is true because science. — Bartricks

No. Science is the verification, experimentation, falsification, and accurate prediction in regards to the material reality from which consciousness accrues data. Materialism is true because I exist as material in a domain of emergent material existence, with no evidence of any other form of compositional elements, except that of alternating variations of matter itself. And when I say no evidence, I mean absolute-zero. As in, not even a single indication otherwise of any kind across any domain of inquiry, research, or inductive exploration.

Now, put down your microscope and turn on your reason and try - try - and do some philosophy. — Bartricks

Now, god damnit, I said keep your insults to yourself. I swear to God I will not tell you again.

If you think its conclusion is true, then you think killing someone does not harm them. So punching you would be a more harmful thing to do to you than killing you. If you are about to stub your toe and I can prevent that by killing you, then that would bein your best interests. That is stupider than a stupid thing on stupid day, is it not? — Bartricks

You have allowed your insults to dominate your understanding of my position. I have already conceded that death is the very definition of harm within the context of modern English meaning. The conclusion is most certainly false if the what was meant was pain. As it happens, what Epicurus was emphasizing was "bad," as opposed to the Socratic exploration of "the good," being an ethically valenced assertion. Meaning, death does not constitute the "bad," as the definitive absence of experience (death) is itself the absence of the experiential conditions that define both good, or bad. Which happens to be flat-out functionally correct and in complete accord with modern neuroscience.

If the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false — Bartricks

There is no such thing as a deductively valid argument that bears a false conclusion, except when all premises and operators are themselves false. Is in, definitionally speaking. Valid means true conclusion from true premises. It is statements like this that demonstrate to me why you keep resorting to insults compulsively.

If it helps, read that via a microscope, as then it would be scientific as you observed it using an instrument of science. — Bartricks

You just can't help yourself can you?

Again, look down the microscope at this: if 1 or 2 is false, and 1 is true, then 2 is false. — Bartricks

Okay.

But how can 2 be false if some scientists who don't understand the boundaries of their own discipline or expertise think it is true? How can that be? How could Garret be wrong. — Bartricks

Right, we're still trying to build evidence that 2 is actually a false premise. That hasn't been done yet. But, logically, if 1 is true and 2 is false, then what is going here is that the truth value of this conditional statment, in this particular hypothetical instance of 1 being true and 2 being false, results in a falsehood.

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence — Bartricks

P>Q
P
_____
R

This is your argument in terms of logic. The ending of existence is not a conclusion that follows logically from this proposition. Properly written in modus ponens, the proposition would look thus:

P(harm at t1)>Q(t1 existence)
P(harmed at t1)
_____
Q(existed at t1)

not R (existed at t2)

In other words, you're wrong logically, and inductively by all measurable accounts.

That you cannot reconcile the conclusion with your worldview is 'your' problem, not evidence the conclusion is false. — Bartricks

No, it's a problem of invalid logic conducted by the logician whom did the conducting, as demonstrated above.

So, your argument that materialism is true, is that it is true. Good stuff!! A+

The argument I presented was deductively valid. It had this form:

1. If p, then q
2. P
3. Therefore q

Or you could just use your reason and see that the conclusion follows.

You accept that death is a harm. Well then you are rationally obliged to accept the conclusion if you accept the existence condition.

Then you said some patently false things about deductively valid arguments. Again, if the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false, then at least one premise is false.

Incidentally, how do you know an argument is valid? Do you look at it down a microscope? Can you weigh validity or touch it? Is it made of molecules?

For the record: you seem to have a very poor understanding of Epicurus and of his influence. The idea that he is the 'most' influential philosopher is absurd. But it reflects your approach. He is, no doubt, the philosopher you have most been influenced by and thus he must be the most influential ever.

So, your argument that materialism is true, is that it is true. Good stuff!! A+ — Bartricks

Yes, all true and valid propositions are tautological by definition, both logically and inductively. A=A.

1. If p, then q
2. P
3. Therefore q — Bartricks

No, it didn't, or Q would have been repeated instead of modified. Plain and simple. Your conclusion was R, not Q.

You accept that death is a harm. Well then you are rationally obliged to accept the conclusion if you accept the existence condition. — Bartricks

A harm as in an injury to my body. Death is presupossed by harm. And again, your conclusion is not implied in your syllogism.

Then you said some patently false things about deductively valid arguments. — Bartricks

No, validity is determined by true conclusions preidacted on true premises. You have make an argument that is mapped to a truth table and that truth table does not contain a linear tautology of truth values corresponding to operators and conclusions, then it isn't valid. Meaning what you said was a patent falsehood.

if the conclusion of a deductively valid argument is false, then at least one premise is false. — Bartricks

If a conclusion is false, it is not valid argument. That's intro logic.

Incidentally, how do you know an argument is valid? Do you look at it down a microscope? Can you weigh validity or touch it? Is it made of molecules? — Bartricks

Validity is determined by linear tautology of true premises/operators corresponding to a true conclusion, which is determine via truth table. Validity does not imply truth. Truth is determined via correspondence, which often includes microscopes You don't need to be able to weigh it, there are long-established standards. No, it isn't made of molecules, it is conceptual, which is why it sometimes fails in the crucible of inductive inquiry.

Yes, all true and valid propositions are tautological by definition, both logically and inductively. A=A. — Garrett Travers

You don't really know what you're talking about. Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions. And yes, this argument - your argument -

1. Materialism is true
2. Therefore materialism is true

is valid. It's just shit, that's all. And it's all you've got.

No, it didn't, or Q would have been repeated instead of modified. Plain and simple. Your conclusion was R, not Q. — Garrett Travers

Yes it did, it's just you don't understand the meaning of the sentences I used in the original. Anyway, like so many others here, what you've done is read about argument form without actually being able to recognize a valid argument intuitively. You are the equivalent of a parrot who says 'hello' without at all understanding what 'hello' means.

A harm as in an injury to my body. — Garrett Travers

Say it and it is so. The Garrett Travers school of philosophy. So if my body is annihilated, that won't harm me, yes? That's dumb. If you're about to stub your toe and I can prevent that by totally annihilating your body, then that's what's best for you. Dumb, yes? Obviously false, yes?

Shall i refute materialism for you? What's that? Squawk? I'll take that to be a yes.

1. If materialism is true, then the total annihilation of my body would not harm me.
2. The total annihilation of my body will harm me
3. Therefore materialism is false

And here's another:

1. A material object can be infinitely divided
2. That which can be infinitely divided has infinite parts
3. Nothing has infinite parts
4. Therefore nothing is a material object.

And another:

1. The sensible world is the place that some of our sensations resemble
2. Sensations can only resemble sensations
3. Therefore, the sensible world is made of sensations (not mind external extended objects)

Here's another:

1. Materialism is the view that everything is material
2. My mind is not material
3. Therefore materialism is false.

You think 2 is false, becuase 'science'. But provide evidence that 2 is false. Bet you can't. I can give you stacks that it is true. Just give me one piece of evidence that 2 is false (I already know what you're going to provide - ooo, but science has shown that doing this to the brain causes this conscious state....therefore the mind is the brain....squawk)

Now, this is a good argument:

1. To be harmed at time t1 you need to exist at time t1.
2. Our deaths harm us
3. Therefore our deaths do not end our existence
— Bartricks

P>Q
P
_____
R

This is your argument in terms of logic. The ending of existence is not a conclusion that follows logically from this proposition. Properly written in modus ponens, the proposition would look thus:

P(harm at t1)>Q(t1 existence)
P(harmed at t1)
_____
Q(existed at t1)

not R (existed at t2) — Garrett Travers

What total and utter junk. You really can't reason.

Because you're a parrot and don't seem to understand the meaning of a sentence and how it can be differently expressed, note that premise 1 of my argument means the same as this:

1. If I am harmed by an event at time t1, then I exist at time t1

And the meaning of 2 can be expressed thusly:

2. I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs.

From which it follows that:

3. Therefore, I exist at the time of my death. Durr. Which means my death cannot be the cessation of my existence. I can't exist and not exist at the time of my death. It's one or the other. And it is 'exist'.

Not hard. Here's my advice: stop trying to learn logic and just try and recognize what follows from what.

Which means my death cannot be the cessation of my existence. — Bartricks

This is the part of that conclusion that turned into a R, in place of a Q. No, this conclusion is not implied in your premises. Your premises imply existence at time of death T1, not continued existence afterward, that would be T2. Meaning, you, in fact, replaced your implied conclusion with a different conclusion. It's a pretty common error with people who haven't been studying logic very long. I'll give you a pass. But, please put more exercise into the art for proper understanding. And you're also not correct scientifically either. Death is the point of non-existence, they are tantamount. You cannot die unless you were the one dying at the moment of death, which thereby ends experience as an operable function of the brain. So, you've.... got some thinking to do.... Come back when you're a bit sharper and not as prone to trantrums in the face of overwhelming arguments against your irrationally concluded positions.

So, just to be clear, do you think you exist at the time of your death, or not? That is, do you think death marks the cessation of your existence - in which case you do not exist at the time of your death - or not? Be clear.

Because death is a harm. If death improves our condition, then it is not a harm. If death is nothing, then it is not a harm. If death makes our condition worse, then it is a harm and we have reason to avoid it - and that is clearly the case, for the reason of virtually everyone confirms that death is a great harm. So great we use it as the most severe punishment. So great it is only if you are in agony with no prospect of it ending that you have reason to opt for death. We can reasonably conclude then that life after death is worse than life before it by some margin. — Bartricks

I don't agree with your logic. People are afraid of death (apart from the being afraid of the suffering that dying might entail) because it is the unknown. I think it is reasonable to think that people generally fear non-existence more than they fear the possibility that after death they may find themselves in a worse situation than they did during life.

We also arguably have a very powerful instinct for self-preservation that we share with the animals. So fear of death is not hard to explain. If death is non-existence, then dying would be a harm if we hate the idea of non-existence, but death itself would not be a harm, because that which is nothing cannot be harmful. If our condition after death were worse than it was during life, then death would be a harm, and if our condition after death were better than during life, then death would be a boon.

It,s not Garrett's logic, but yours which is invalid. You assume your conclusion; a rookie error.

People are afraid of death (apart from the being afraid of the suffering that dying might entail) because it is the unknown. — Janus

I didn't talk about fear of death. I said the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be a great harm. That doesn't mean the same as 'virtually everyone fears death'. It is a very good explanation of why virtually everyone fears death - our reason tells us it is worth fearing. But my claim is that our reason represents death to be a great harm. That's why we use it to punish people. That's why we think killing people is very wrong (unless the person deserves to die, or their existence here has become agony for them).

To be clear then: you are claiming that death is not harmful? Coz that's silly.

I said the reason of virtually everyone represents it to be a great harm — Bartricks

Only because they are reasoning from their fears. That is the point you are failing to get.

Well of course his logic seems valid to you! You can't reason well either. And none of my arguments assume their conclusions. For my arguments to appear good to you they'd have to be appalling. If you really want to upset me, agree with me.

Only because they are reasoning from their fears. That is the point you are failing to get. — Janus

Question begging. Read what I wrote. Don't substitute my words for yours.

Now, answer my question: do you think death is not a harm? Coz that's really silly if you do.

And none of my arguments assume their conclusions. — Bartricks

1. If I am harmed by an event at time t1, then I exist at time t1

And the meaning of 2 can be expressed thusly:

2. I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs.

From which it follows that:

3. Therefore, I exist at the time of my death. — Bartricks

In the above argument you assume both that you exist at the time of your death and that you are harmed by the event of your death. You say " I am harmed by the event of my death when it occurs", and this is merely a premise the truth of which depends on your conclusion "I exist at the time of my death".

Question begging. Read what I wrote. Don't substitute my words for yours. — Bartricks

Your words are your words and mine are mine; there is no substitution going on. I am not paraphrasing you. Make an argument or fuck off.

I don't know whether death is a harm or not because I don't know whether I will exist when I am dead. And neither do you.

You don't really know what you're talking about. Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions. And yes, this argument - your argument - — Bartricks

It's literally the basic principle of validity: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

https://iep.utm.edu/val-snd/

But, I mean keep sending me this juicy outburst.

is valid. It's just shit, that's all. And it's all you've got. — Bartricks

Yep, that's correct. A=A forever.

Yes it did, it's just you don't understand the meaning of the sentences I used in the original. Anyway, like so many others here, what you've done is read about argument form without actually being able to recognize a valid argument intuitively. You are the equivalent of a parrot who says 'hello' without at all understanding what 'hello' means. — Bartricks

Yes, a very handsome parrot who just utterly demolished your ignorant, invalid, unscientific argument using nothing but the most basic principles of logic. Cool how actually philosophy works.

Shall i refute materialism for you? What's that? Squawk? I'll take that to be a yes. — Bartricks

You just proved its existence by mentioning it as a material entity confined within material reality. But, sure. Show me what you got.

1. A material object can be infinitely divided
2. That which can be infinitely divided has infinite parts
3. Nothing has infinite parts
4. Therefore nothing is a material object. — Bartricks

1. If existence is not material, then a preponderance of evidence of non-material existence will be presented
2. No preponderance of evidence of non-material existence is present
3. Therefore reality is material

See how this works?

1. A material object can be infinitely divided
2. That which can be infinitely divided has infinite parts
3. Nothing has infinite parts
4. Therefore nothing is a material object. — Bartricks

1. All non-material objects are devoid of properties
2. All observable objects have properties
3. All non-material objects are not observable
4. All observable objects are material

We can do this all night.

1. The sensible world is the place that some of our sensations resemble
2. Sensations can only resemble sensations
3. Therefore, the sensible world is made of sensations (not mind external extended objects) — Bartricks

This is not a valid argument.


This one is though

1. All sensations are functions of the brain
2. No immaterial force produces sensation
3. All sensations are of material forces

1. Materialism is the view that everything is material
2. My mind is not material
3. Therefore materialism is false. — Bartricks

1. Materialism is the view that everything is material
2. No known object is immaterial
3 Materialism accurately describes all known objects


Well, that was easy. Fun fact, not a single valid argument on this post is proven true. Validity does not imply truth. Figured you should know that before you waste your time with this again.

I don't know whether death is a harm or not because I don't know whether I will exist when I am dead. And neither do you. — Janus

I've demonstrated to him that his logic is invalid by using nothing more than day one logic class rules, and he doesn't want to give up. This is because he wishes to negate the intelligence of the most influential philosopher, and greatest thing to ever happen to philosophy, of all time. Instead what has happened, is that he's made an ass out of himself and won't actually discuss the topic at hand. Which does nothing more than prove that Epicurus, as of the moment, cannot be defeated by irrationality. It's fabulous.

Well of course his logic seems valid to you! — Bartricks

No, it doesn't seem valid. This is how you make it clear you're not familiar with logic. Logic is formal, definitive, has rules. Seem isn't a factor in logic. It is either valid, or not valid. But, let's move on to Epicurus being objectively superior to all of the people you think are philosophers.

In the above argument you assume both that you exist at the time of your death and that you are harmed by the event of your death. — Janus

No I don't. I conclude that I exist at the time of my death. Jesus.

Make an argument or fuck off. — Janus

Charming, Hugh. I did make an argument. I make nothing but arguments. Now, address them or sexually intercourse yourself away from here.

So, just to be clear, do you think you exist at the time of your death, or not? That is, do you think death marks the cessation of your existence - in which case you do not exist at the time of your death - or not? Be clear. — Bartricks

Death is the irrevocable cessation of the functionality of the brain that produces every experience that verifies, validates, or impacts existence within the purview of a given brain. When the brain stops working, you no longer exist. One must be present at death to die and be present for it, but it is the last point of existence for the human being. There, some clarity. Now, let's actually talk about how Epicurus is the greatest thing to ever happen to philosophy, because that's what I started this discussion for.

It's literally the basic principle of validity: A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid. — Garrett Travers

Validity is a property of arguments, not propositions.

And a valid argument can have a false conclusion. You're confusing validity with soundness.

If a valid argument has a false conclusion, then we have discovered by it that at least one premise is false.

Now, I have a book to write and I am behind so I will have to reply to the rest of your squawkings later.