Suffering

[Mystic]

A->B Doesn't usually say anything about whether A is true. However, in this case, I would say with morality, it does show it to be true for certain reasons.

However it doesn't really prove A to be true unless you accept both: A -> B to true. And [A -> B] ->A to be true

I'm just not sure how A->B can be assumed to be true on its own if A hasn't shown to be true. By using A->B you have assumed A to be true and hence proving B (i.e. God, which is the thing of concern) and then this allows you to go back and [wrongly] accept that A must be true for the whole thin to be able to work.

Maybe I've missed the point. I'm not sure.

A-> B in itself says nothing about whether A is true or B is true. It only says if A is true, then B is true. Therefore A ->B doesn't assume A is true.