OK Christians. your chance. Convince me of God.

[Cyberman]

What are we supposed to knock? Because if it's my own head, you've had that.

[Mystic]

Quran has similar promises.

"God guides to himself those whom turn to him"
"As for those whom strive for us, we surely shall guide them in our ways"

[The Grand Nudger]

Double negatives cancel to make a positive.

Oh do they, because I thought you were trying to arrange some sort of valid argument, not multiply two negative integers.....................so, to be clear, you still aren't willing to assert that A is the only sufficient condition of B before drawing some conclusion of A based on B? Nothing in Not A implies B to begin with btw Mystic, you're going to need to add at least one more bare assertion to your argument before it's valid...and then it still wont be sound.

(don't get me wrong, perhaps to one who believes in such a thing a narrative from a god would be free contradictions..but that isn't there in your argument, now is it? Even if one did believe such a thing - or was willing to assert it- they'd have trouble establishing that there was nothing else that accounted for said lack of contradictions. The reverse is also true, contradictions being found in any religious narrative do not prove the narrative is not from a god. They would only call into question any argument that explicitly stated that a narrative could be proved to be from a god by way of a lack of contradictions within it. Not that such an argument has any merit....as I keep trying to explain to you, but it;s fun sometimes to just keel over, let someone jack their own dick for a bit, and explain to them why they're still holding nothing but their cock.)

[Mystic]

Rhythm, I said those two premises are wrong (1 and 2). I never asserted they are true. I just said it's a valid argument, however, the two premises that lead to the conclusion to me are obviously wrong.

There is a difference between a valid argument and a sound argument.

[The Grand Nudger]

I keep trying to explain to you that it doesn't matter whether or not they are wrong.........

[Mystic]

Ok let's rework the premises:

If it's not from God (a) , people would find it much discrepancies (b).
People don't find in it much discrepancies (not b)
Therefore It's from God (not a)

Is that fine with you?

A -> B
Not B
Therefore not A.

When you say A ->B

B doesn't depend on A being true, but A depends on B being true.

B can be true without A being true. But A cannot be true, without B being true.

[The Grand Nudger]

At least we've dropped the Not A start (instead opting to keep the "not" in grammatically, lol)

-"B doesn't depend on A being true, but A depends on B being true.

B can be true without A being true. But A cannot be true, without B being true."-

Right here, you're doing it again. Unless you're willing to assert that A is the only sufficient condition for B.......in the argument, not as an addendum....then no, it still isn't "okay with me" - Which you clearly aren't, as you gave an excellent example of why a propositional fallacy is unsatisfactory in this very response.

[Mystic]

*Sigh*

Why would I assert that?

A implies B, but B can be true without A being true.

---

Rhythm, in Logic, "Not not" cancel out.

Not A -> B = Not B -> A

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, why indeed. Because for A to imply B you would have to -it has to be stated that A is the only sufficient condition for B, or else it doesn't follow. If it doesn't follow then it doesn't even matter if Not B (the next bit), is true, now does it? You're going to need another premise to establish that words from god are not contradictory (not that you haven't nestled that in the argument already as a hidden premise).

[Mystic]

Right, why indeed. Because for A to imply B you would have to -it has to be stated that A is the only sufficient condition for B, or else it doesn't follow. If it doesn't follow then it doesn't even matter if Not B (the next bit), is true, now does it?

You are talking non sense. A is not a condition for B. B is a condition for A. And it doesn't have to be the only condition for A.

B can be true regardless of A. But if B is not true, then A is definitely not true.

If A is true, however, then B is true. It doesn't mean B is dependent on A being true.