Argument 22. The Argument from the Consensus of Mystics
The argument that is she makes against the truths she makes attacks the notion that mystics can gain contact with a god through visions. The idea I believe is made that is made that the state is limited to these mystics. She makes a point to compare the visions of the mystics to a state of being drunk that is dismissed when the drunkard makes cases of seeing things. She also makes a point to show that for the visions to happen that are limited in the bounds of a language that is tied with a religion.
Argument 23 The Argument from Holy Books
The argument starts with her stance for the Holy books to be truth, there must be an independent knowledge of the being in some cases "God" to have already existed. The second flaw that she points out is that the books all claim to be right, a certain aspect of texts to be truth while laying the claims of others to be wrong. The issue that she brings up with the holy texts is that each group claims that their point of view is the correct one and their texts are the back bone for the arguments.