RE: Proof of the guidance of Mohammad and Ali.
October 30, 2016 at 9:31 am
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2016 at 10:02 am by Edwardo Piet.)
(October 29, 2016 at 7:13 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I am taking God for granted,
Yes, this is the assumed premise 'what we will be taking for granted', for sake of argument, as per your OP.
Quote:but I am then arguing why it makes more sense given that God exists, that his system guides to the truth as opposed to his system not guiding to the truth.
This is because he would not be a God let alone the God, if his system didn't guide to the truth.
And these are all conclusions that don't follow from the above premise. Your so-called "arguing" is just a bunch of non-sequiturs, in all honesty.
ETA:
Here let me break it down for you..
"a god exists" is the premise we take for granted and accept.
Watch what doesn't follow logically:
Mysticknight Wrote:his system
Regarding "his"... it does not follow logically from the premise that a god exists that it is a he. Regarding "system"... it does not follow logically that if there is a god it has a system.
Quote:guides to the truth
Regarding "guides"... it does not follow logically from the premise that god exists that it guides anything. Regarding "to the truth"... it does not follow logically from the premise that a god exists that that god would in any way be interested in the truth.
Quote:as opposed to his system not guiding to the truth.
Regarding this. It does not follow logically from the premise that a god exists that it would not be interested in not guiding to the truth.
Quote:This is because he would not be a God let alone the God, if his system didn't guide to the truth.
Regarding this. It does not follow logically from the premise that a god exists that if it existed it would not be god unless it was a guy who had a system that guided to the truth.
None of that logically follows from the premise.
So, my conclusion is thus: You're saying the premise is that "God exists" but God's sex and gender being male, God having a system and God guiding to the truth are either assumed implicitly in your premise, making your conclusions thereby a redundant restating of your assumed premise and making your so-called "arguing" entirely pointless, or you're not assuming those things but then your conclusions are all a bunch of non-sequiturs.
