Kent
I'm not irritated with you.

When one is presenting 'matters of faith', then one should be clear about what is assumed at the start, what one can deduce from those assumptions, and what is just 'magically' dragged in 'holus bolus' - sadly many 'matters of faith' are an incredible jumble of confusing and contradictory statements, and include many logical fallacies.... :-)

Inserting a tautology in a chain of logical reasoning is effectively a 'null step', and thus meaningless, cause it adds nothing to any 'proof'. If you (or whosoever's views you are presenting - you don't have 'to believe' - I did debating societies for some time!) want it as one of the 'starting assumptions', then it should clearly be represented as such, not mixed in with other concepts.

And if it is a 'starting assumption', then it cannot be a tautology (by definition!)...

"You can't just post this stuff and expect no-one to try to refute it"

Yep ...