“If you want to focus on the semantics around logic, you are free to do so, but it is not enough to make your case.”

But the semantics around the logic is my case. This is my conclusion as quoted from the article.

". . . positions like Marley's are not self contradictory, as Penguin claims, and arguments against them must be based on facts and research not deductive logic".

Penguin claimed that Marley’s position was “self-refuting” which means that it could be refuted by logic alone. I was only arguing that Marley couldn’t be refuted that easily, not that she was correct. I didn’t say much, if anything, about whether Marley’s claims are true or false. I expressed some skepticism about whether it made that much difference whether they were true or not, but didn’t say much because I wanted to focus on what you called the “Semantic” issue.

I think you would have understood my point better if you had kept a sharper focus on some of the technical logical terms you were using. For example, you speak of “false arguments” and “unsound premises” which are both category mistakes. Arguments can’t be either true or false, they can only be valid or invalid. Premises can’t be sound or unsound, they can only be true or false. An Argument is sound only if it has true premises and valid inferences. This may seem like hairsplitting, but it was this confusion that caused you to change the subject and think you were responding to my argument.

Thanks for taking the trouble to read the argument with such care. I agree with a lot what you say, it just doesn’t have anything to do with the subject I was discussing here. I was only arguing that Marley’s arguments were valid, not that her premises were true. You may think the distinction is trivial, but it was the central claim of Penguin’s paper