dennis, you are using logic a bit incorrectly. In the hopes of helping you out with it, I'm going to focus specifically on that in this post. Here is a website which explains logic basics: https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/owlprint/659/
If a premise turns out to be false, then it generally falsifies the entire argument, and even when it doesn't explicitly do so, it prevents a firm conclusion from being drawn.
I explained eslewhere - and agree/understand all this.
My point exactly - as bolded above.
NOTE: I am using the world 'claim' in the simple (non-philosophical sense.)
So when a 'claim' is made (as Premise > 'all cats are black') Then the argument can easily be disputed.
So we can argue about the veracity of my claims about theism - but it is only meaningful if the claim is part of a logical argument that leads to the conclusion of God's existence (for instance)
Why don't I argue about 'flying spaghetti monsters'? Because the premise (the claim by that argument) is in the same category as 'all cats are black'.
I am not explaining this very well, but I am trying to say that when I argue (If God, then....) there are two
parts to our discussion. You can fault me on the logic/structure or you can fault me on my premises (the content/claim/hypothesis) etc.
I have tried to show (e.g.) with my discussion with @PP, that the logic is 'reasonable'.
I am doing that to ask you guys (and gals) to stop saying it's STUPID.
You can argue that (the premise) is WRONG, but in my mind there is a difference between being stupid and being wrong.
If you keep calling people stupid, it is hard to have a conversation. (Hence some characters on my ignore list.)
It is FUN to have a conversation with someone you think is wrong.