Reasons for believing?

[OldTrees]

@Furby
All deductive arguments are just a restating of the premises. That is why inductive argumentation was invented. (See my initial argument with the "most"s intact)

We agree on how people start (how they grew up) and a cause of their resistance to change. Unfortunately I do not know enough about conversions to know the rare reasons for conversions so I cannot answer the question you are interested in.

However some types of reasons that might be compelling are:
Apparent likelihood (as judged by the convert not judged by logic)
Pleasing belief (promises, just/fair world)

[Furby]

Deductive=if premises are true, then the conclusion, following from premises, is 100% true by definition.

Inductive=same thing, but is most probable by definition.

Re-stating premises is neither deductive/inductive.

[OldTrees]

Re-stating premises is neither deductive/inductive.

Since deductive is necessarily true from the premises, it is merely restating the premises.
My argument (All A is B, Some A is C, Some A is B&C) is merely one of the more obvious cases of this aspect of deductive arguments.

Inductive argumentation includes intuitive leaps provided the audience agrees with the leap.

[Furby]

Deductive arguments do not repeat premises.

Example:

You are saying apples are red, blood is red, therefore apples and blood are red.

Deductive argument is more like this:

If it rains, the ground is wet.
It rained
Therefore the ground is wet

Others include categorical syllogisms which if done correctly, do not repeat:

No humans are animals
All dogs are animals
Therefore, no humans are dogs. I never said Humans were dogs in my premises, it was derived. As in the 'red' example: you have proved nothing.

Inductive: same as deductive, but probable and not repeating premises.

Jill and Bob are friends. Jill likes to dance, cook and write. Bob likes to dance and cook. Therefore it can be assumed he also likes to write.

[OldTrees]

Deductive arguments do not repeat premises.

Based upon the examples in your post, it appears we disagree on what it means to repeat premises.

You are saying apples are red, blood is red, therefore apples and blood are red.

Yeah, no. I made a much larger claim.

The apple/blood claim:
Circle R contains circle A
Circle R contains circle B
Therefore circle R contains circle A and circle B
A valid but boring deductive argument demonstrating the distribution of AND and IF. (IF A) and (IF B) = IF (A and B)

My claim:
Circle P is contained within circle B
Circle R is overlaps some of circle P
Therefore there is a section of circle P that overlaps circle R and circle B (Note the claim that R and B overlap)
A valid and more complex deductive argument.

What I did was used circle P to describe some of the relationship between circles B and R. Namely that they overlap within a section of circle P.

[Furby]

Maybe this is where need to focus:

(All A is B, Some A is C, Some A is B&C)

Perhaps you are trying to say All A are C, some A are B, therefore some B are C? In the circle example, nothing is proved if you bring down the circle/middle term into conclusion. Arguments need to say something about the minor and major premise.

Example: Instead of saying:

Circle R contains circle A
Circle R contains circle B
Therefore circle R contains circle A and circle B

Say Circle R contains Circle A and circle contains circle B. Therefore, it is possible Circles A and B overlap. Stating both are in Circle R...sure, you can combine the premises...but that gets us no where.

Example: Instead of saying:

Circle P is contained within circle B
Circle R is overlaps some of circle P
Therefore there is a section of circle P that overlaps circle R and circle B

Just leave P out and say for your conclusion: Therefore, circle R overlaps part of circle B/vice versa. I think I am getting confused in your conclusions because you keep bringing the middle term, like Circle R in the above example, to the conclusion when it is not necessary.

[OldTrees]

@Furby
Yes I would be saying "therefore some B are C" IF such a sentence made sense in English. However since it does not make sense in English, I needed to keep the context. Thus "therefore some A(noun) is B(characteristic) and C(characteristic)". The conclusion is about confirming the existence of simultaneous B and C characteristics.

PS:
Why settle for concluding "Some B are C" when you can conclude that and more by saying "Some A is B and C"? The first conclusion loses information. The second conclusion loses less information and thus makes a larger claim.

[Furby]

You are not losing information. Have you tried proofs using modern day logic before? Not everyone has, but if you do, you'll notice you don't lose anything.

In the same way: see it like this:

1) All A are B
2) Some A are C
3) Some B are C--->proven by lines 1+2 using Deductive reasoning
5)...
6)...
...

I still keep lines 1 and 2. Also, please note that if you say some A are B and C says nothing about the relationship between B and C which is why the conclusion needs to be Some B are C.

[OldTrees]

You are not losing information. Have you tried proofs using modern day logic before? Not everyone has, but if you do, you'll notice you don't lose anything.

Any information not in your conclusion is not in your conclusion. If you conclusion does not contain some information then for the purpose of your conclusion you have lost that information. Aka you are making a weaker claim than you could have.

Also, please note that if you say some A are B and C says nothing about the relationship between B and C which is why the conclusion needs to be Some B are C.

"Some A are B and C" says the following relationship between B and C "There exists an A that has both characteristics B and C. It is not the case that B and C never intersect. It is in fact the case that B and C do intersect." If you do not consider that a sufficient conclusion then your standards for conclusions are not broad enough. (Have you read a modern day scientific paper? Not everyone has but if you do then you'll notice that argumentation is broader and more subtle than the examples you have been taught so far.)

[SnoWeb]

Everybody needs to believe in something.
I believe I'll have another beer.

[Furby]

You are not losing information. Have you tried proofs using modern day logic before? Not everyone has, but if you do, you'll notice you don't lose anything.

Any information not in your conclusion is not in your conclusion. If you conclusion does not contain some information then for the purpose of your conclusion you have lost that information. Aka you are making a weaker claim than you could have.

Also, please note that if you say some A are B and C says nothing about the relationship between B and C which is why the conclusion needs to be Some B are C.

"Some A are B and C" says the following relationship between B and C "There exists an A that has both characteristics B and C. It is not the case that B and C never intersect. It is in fact the case that B and C do intersect." If you do not consider that a sufficient conclusion then your standards for conclusions are not broad enough. (Have you read a modern day scientific paper? Not everyone has but if you do then you'll notice that argumentation is broader and more subtle than the examples you have been taught so far.)

Incorrect. Any information not in your conclusion is not lost. You can always save it for later.

Saying some A are B and C only shows B and C are with A to some degree. It does not tell us if B and C intersect or not.

Example:

Some red things are apples
Some apples are big
therefore, some red things are apples and some and some red things are big (restating my premises as a conjuction)

I made no claim as to whether some red things are big yet. So the above conclusion gets me no where.

What I should say, inductively, is: therefore, some red things are big things.

Now, do we discard that some red things are apples or some apples are big? No, we keep that information.

[Furby]

Everybody needs to believe in something.
I believe I'll have another beer.

Do you consider not believing a belief? And do you think some people find happiness as 'non-believers?'