Define predicates:
A (x): X is a meaningful proposition;
B (x): X is the proposition of analysis;
C (x): X is a proposition that can be falsified in principle;
D (x): X is a religious proposition;
I use the symbol @ to represent full-name quantifiers respectively; So:
Premise:
( 1):@x(a(x)∧¬b(x)→c(x));
(2):@x(d(x)→(¬b(x)∧¬c(x));
Conclusion:
(0):@x(d(x)→¬a(x));
In fact, because this topic only involves full-name quantifiers, and there is only one argument, it can be completely solved by propositional logic:
( 1):a∧¬b→c;
(2):d→¬b∧¬c;
Prove:
According to (1)
=>¬(A∧¬B)∨C
=>(¬A∨B)∨C
=>(B∨C)∨¬A
=>¬(B∨C)→¬A
=>¬B∧¬C→¬A
Reuse (2)
=>D→¬A
Certificate of completion;
You just need to change the above symbols into corresponding predicates, and then add quantifiers in front of them.