The argument from power.

[Mister Agenda]

Hmm. The conclusion does not follow from the premises, and the premises are all baseless assertions.

I revised a few times, and to me it seems the conclusion does follow from the premises.

I haven't elaborated on the premises, because I want agreement whether the argument is valid or not.



a -> b.
not c -> not b
a
Therefore b from a->b and a
c from b -> c (contra positive) and b.

C is God giving power, which given it is God existing....

Therefore it seems valid.

Tell me where you disagree!

I have to agree the form is valid, I was wrong about the conclusion not following.

If ducks like hysterical cats, then all hats are edible.

If there isn't any cheese, no hats are edible.

Ducks do like hysterical cats, therefore all hats are edible and there is at least some cheese.

You argument is both as sound and valid as the one above. The problem doesn't lie in the form after all. Good work on that part.