All Religious Bloodshed is Righteous if God Exists

My argument is in the form of a logical syllogism accompanied by first-order formal logical representations (. https://en.wikipedia.org...). An understanding of formal logic is not necessary; all forwarded assertions are written out and anything else is just logical modifications of those. MP1) God is willing to intervene with influential knowledge. Logic: Ig MP2) If someone’s religious belief is not mistaken, then that person’s belief is righteous. Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&~Mx)>Rx) MP3) If someone’s religious belief is righteous, then bloodshed in accordance with it is righteous. Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&Rx)>Rdx) MP4) There exist people with religious beliefs that are mistaken. Logic: (Ex)(Bxg&Mx) MP5) There exists bloodshed that is committed in accordance with mistaken religious beliefs. Logic: (Ex)(Bxg&Mx&Mdx) MP6) God could correct mistaken religious beliefs by intervening with influential knowledge. Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>Cgx) MP7) God is able, but unwilling, to correcting those with mistaken religious beliefs. Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>(Lgx&~Wgx)) MP8) If God is unwilling to correct mistaken religious beliefs, then they are righteous or He is unwilling to infringe on free will to do it. Logic: (Ax)(~Wgx>(Rxv~Fgx)) MP9) God is willing to infringe on someone’s free will and all mistaken beliefs are righteous. Logic: (Ax)(Fgx&Bxg&Mx&Rx) MC) All bloodshed that is committed in accordance with any religious belief (mistaken or not) is righteous. Logic: (Ax)((Bxg&(Mxv~Mx))>Rdx)Elaborations: P1) Religious belief exists. Since God is transcendent, it is impossible for us to come to have knowledge/awareness of Him without His direct influence. This constitutes all possible means of doing so, including revelations, scriptures, and innate tendency to believe. (justification, below) P2-P3) If a person holds a belief that is actually true about what God wants, then that belief is righteous. Further, if that belief entails committing acts of violence or bloodshed, then that is also righteous. P4-P5) There exist people who hold contradicting religious beliefs which indicates that both cannot be true according to the Principle of Non-Contradiction, “opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time” [1]. Beliefs that are mistaken are so due to an inconsistency with the knowledge that was made available by God (P1), through embellishment, perversion, misunderstanding, etc. (justification, below) P6) This argument pertains to individuals who genuinely hold their religious beliefs to be true, and if an individual is masquerading as religious in order to achieve other ends, then the resulting actions are not actually religiously aligned. So, in all cases of genuine, but mistaken believers, it is possible for knowledge to be revealed to them by God (P1) in order to influence that person and correct that mistaken belief. P7) If a being is both able and willing to do something, then it will do that thing. Since God is fully able to correct mistaken beliefs, being omniscient and omnipotent, and mistaken beliefs exist that have not been corrected, it can be deduced that God is unwilling to correct them. (justification, below) P8-C) Since God is unwilling to correct mistaken religious beliefs, the existence of those mistaken beliefs, in of and themselves, are in accordance with His will. It is often claimed that God would not wish to violate peoples’ free will by revealing Himself, but if this is considered a violation of free will, then God has already shown that He is willing to do that (P1). And since all bloodshed and violence that is in accordance with those beliefs is subject to the same conditions for correction, then that religious bloodshed is also righteous. (justification, below) Logical Justifications: Rules employed: Modus Ponens (MP), Modus Tollens (MT), Disjunctional Syllogism (DS), DeMorgan’s Rule (DM), Conjunction (CJ), Constructive Dilemma (CD), Tautology (Taut), Distribution (Dist), Universal Instantiation (UI), Universal Generalization (UG), Existential Instantiation (EI), Change of Quantifier (CQ), as well as Indirect Proof (IP) and Conditional Proof (CP). [2][3][4] Definitional Premises D1) Sg&Og&Tg :: “God is omniscient, omnipotent, and transcendent. ” D2) (Ax)(Ay)(Sy>Kyx) :: “If a being is omniscient, then it has knowledge of everything. ” D3) (Ax)(Ay)(Oy>Pyx) :: “If a being is omnipotent, then it has the power to do anything logically possible. ” (P1) Justification P1) (Ex)(Bxg) :: “There exists people who have religious beliefs. ” P2) (Ax)(Ay)(~Kxy>~Bxy) :: “If people have no knowledge of something, then they cannot have beliefs about it. ” P3) (Ax)(Ay)((Ty&~Iyx)>~Kxy) :: “If a transcendent being is unwilling to intervene, then it is not possible for people to have knowledge it. ” P4) Bag [P1,EI] P5) ~Kag>~Bag [P2,UIx2] P6) Kag [P4,P5,MT] P7) (Tg&~Ig)>~Kag [P3,UIx2] P8) ~TgvIg [P6,P7,MT,DM] C) Ig [D1,P8,DS] (P4) Justification P1) (Ex)(Ey)(Bxg&Byg&Zxy) :: “There exist people with religious beliefs that are contradictory. ” P2) (Ax)(Ay)((Bxg&Byg&Zxy)>(MxvMy)) :: “If two religious beliefs are contradictory, then at least one of those beliefs must be mistaken. ” P3) Bag&Bbg&Zab [P1,EIx2] P4) (Bag&Bbg&Zab)>(MavMb) [P2,UIx2] +P5) ~(Ex)(Bxg&Mx) [Assumed IP] +P6) (Ax)~(Bxg&Mx) [P5,CQ] +P7) ~(Bag&Ma) [P6,UI] +P8) ~Bagv~Ma [P7,DM] +P9) ~Ma [P3,P8,DS] +P10) ~(Bbg&Mb) [P6,UI] +P11) ~Bbgv~Mb [P10,DM] +P12) ~Mb [P3,P11,DS] +P13) ~(MavMb) [P9,P12,CJ,DM] +P14) ~(Bag&Bbg&Zab) [P4,P13,MT] +P15) ~(Bag&Bbg&Zab)&(Bag&Bbg&Zab) [P3,P14,CJ] C) (Ex)(Bxg)(Mx) [P5-P15,IP] (P7) Justification P1) (Ax)(Ay)((Mx&Lyx&Wyx)>Cyx) :: “If something is mistaken and a being is both able and willing to correct it, then that mistaken wouldn’t exist. ” P2) (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>~Cgx) :: “If mistaken religious beliefs exist, then God has not corrected them. ” P3) (Ax)(Ay)(~Lyx>(~Kyxv~Pyx)) :: “If a being is unable to do something, then it is unaware of it or it lacks the power to do so. ” +P4) Bag&Ma [Assumed CP] +P5) (Bag&Ma)>~Cga [P2,UI] +P6) ~Cga [P4,P5,MP] +P7) (Ma&Lga&Wga)>Cga [P1,UIx2] +P8) ~Mav~Lgav~Wga [P6,P7,MT,DM] +P9) ~Lgav~Wga [P4,P8,DS] +P10) ~Lga>(~Kgav~Pga) [P3,UIx2] +P11) Sg>Kga [D2,UIx2] +P12) Kga [D1,P11,MP] +P13) Og>Pga [D3,UIx2] +P14) Pga [D1,P13,MP] +P15) ~(~Kgav~Pga) [P12,P14,CJ,DM] +P16) Lga [P11,P15,MT] +P17) ~Wga [P9,P16,DS] P18) (Bag&Ma)>(Lga&~Wga) [P4-P17,CP] C) (Ax)((Bxg&Mx)>(Lgx&~Wgx)) [P19,UG] (P9) Justification P1) (Ax)(~Fgx>~Ig) :: “If God was unwilling to infringe on free will to correct something, then God would not intervene with influential knowledge. ” P2) Bag&Ma [MP4,EI] P3) (Bag&Ma)>(Lga&~Wga) [P7,UI] P4) Lga&~Wga [P2,P3,MP] P5) ~Wga>(Rav~Fga) [MP8,UI] P6) Rav~Fga [P4,P5,MP] P7) ~Fga>~Ig [P1,UI] P8) Fga [MP1,P7,MT] P9) Ra [P6,P8,DS] C) (Ax)(Fgx&Bxg&Mx&Rx) [P2,P8,P9,CJ,UG] (C) Justification +P1) Bag&Ma [Assumed CP] +P2) Fga&Bag&Ma&Ra [MP9,UI] +P3) (Bag&Ra)>Rda [MP3,UI] +P4) Rda [P2,P3,MP] P5) (Bag&Ma)>Rda [P1-P4,CP] +P6) Bag&~Ma [Assumed CP] +P7) (Bag&~Ma)>Ra [MP2,UI] +P8) Ra [P6,P7,MP] +P9) (Bag&Ra)>Rda [MP3,UI] +P10) Rda [P6,P8,P9,MP] P11) (Bag&~Ma)>Rda [P6-P10,CP] P12) ((Bag&Ma)>Rda)&( (Bag&~Ma)>Rda) [P5,P11,CJ] P13) ((Bag&Ma)v(Bag&~Ma))>(RdavRda) [P12,CD] P14) (Bag&(Mav~Ma))>Rda [P13,Dist,Taut] C) (Ax)((Bxg&(Mxv~Mx))>Rdx) [P14,UG] Sources: [1] (. http://plato.stanford.edu...) [2] (. http://www.philosophy.uncc.edu...) [3] (. http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu...) [4] (. http://logic.umwblogs.org...)