More on Non Sequiturs

My blog of March 30, 2008 led to comments from Winston Smith on the subject ‘ non sequitur.’ Smith said, "The non sequitur is nothing more than a badly drawn conclusion." He gives an example of a premise as follows: Obama has little experience as a leader. Then, he gives an example of a non sequitur as follows: Therefore, Obama would be a bad president.

Smith tells us: One does not ‘use’ non sequiturs. A non sequitur is not an instrument or a law. A non sequitur is just a conclusion that doesn't follow from its premise. He says that we are not talking about ‘necessary statements.’

Smith also tells us: There are countless books about logic. Read them. I don't want to be rude, but it really puzzles me how someone can pretend to prove God 'scientifically' without understanding the elementary concept of a non sequitur.

Smith’s comments do not close my challenges on the non sequitur. For instance, if non sequiturs are not used, why did five atheistic logicians use non sequiturs to produce negative reviews of my book on Amazon.com? (click) Further, if non sequiturs do not produce ‘necessary statements,’ why is Smith asking me to understand the elementary concepts of non sequiturs if my scientific proof of God is constructed with necessary statements?

It seems as though Smith does not have his act together. Readers should take heed to my responses to Smith.

It is clear to me that the US logicians are becoming more and more confused by British empiricism and the ugly English language. It is also clear that the non sequitur is not the solution to the problems of British empiricism and the ugly English language.