[God Dethroned]

I did not read all the posts so forgive me if there is any repitition.

I feel as though the impression that this thread has created is that fallacies cause an argument to be invalid, which is not the case. Maybe it would benefit the discussion if the concepts of validity and truth were explained along with the levels of "goodness" of an argument (validity, consistancy, sound, good). I am assuming that my terms will be wrong, but hopefully everyone understands what I am saying.

An argument can be valid but have a false conclusion.
An argument can be sound and contain a fallacy.
-----These are the types of concepts I think should be explained in the thread before going into deep discussion on the effects of logical fallacies.

Also, I know there are different ways to pick fallacies out of an argument, but I could not explain them myself. The three ways I can think of off the top of my head are counterexamples, recognizing faulty structure in arguments, and some sort of 'logical tree'. If someone could explain the 'logical tree' (If anybody knows what I am talking about), I would love to learn how to use it.

side notes:
When it comes to God, aliens, and many other topics, there is still the fallacy of proving non-existence.

I did not look closely at the list of fallacies, but I do not think I saw circular reasoning.

Would anybody like to discuss the argument "I think, therefore I am"?