NN

To Susanna (366)
Logic acting upon axiomatic premises is the ONLY method of acertaining provable truth.

Your first syllogism is not formally valid, you have committed the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent. Since formal validity is the most basic concept of basic logical inference may I humbly suggest that your grasp of logic is rather more tenuous than you might hope. (oh, and actually the converse of a true statement is not logically necessarily true, only the contrapositive is)

To show the problem your syllogism is equivalent to:

If a being is a god then it can sustain life (If p then q)
Women can create and sustain life (q)
-> Therefore – Women are gods (Therefore p)
Though you could also look at it as an improper commutation of conditionals depending on which error you wanted to use

In addition what you call “dialectic’ here is simply a definition of terms – you are proposing axioms.

With regard to your second “logical reasoning” – I will recast it into logical forms (and include the premises you did not for clarity):

[If God says in the Bible that a thing is true then it is true]
The Bible (creation account, law, gospels, etc.) do not say that God gave man authority
-> Therefore, God did not give man authority.
… This one is actually a form of denying the antecedent. (There are two fundamental types of binary logical fallacies – you have now managed both.) An equivalent invalid syllogism would be:
[If God says in the Bible that a thing is true then it is true]
The Bible (creation account, law, gospels, etc.) do not mention the “Trinity”
-> Therefore, the “Trinity” is does not exist.

Might I suggest that Lewis’ lament for the state of the educational system was not unjustified.

May I close by stating that I am quite certain that I have not underestimated an opponent – but I also hope that there is no need for you to be an “opponent.” Debate should not be a competition – but an exploration; not about “winning” but about ascertaining truth. (http://nuallan.livejournal.com/34685.html)