All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

1. I did not "ignore" Con's example - as I said, it's nothing more than an assertion in light of the fact that my argument contradicts it. If my argument is valid, Con's example must be false, no matter how commonly accepted it is. He must do more than say that it has sense; he must debunk the argument I have given which renders it senseless. 2. "Pro has to demonstrate that all possible definitions of the concept "Omnipotence" are necessarily incoherent." One can define any word in any way they please. I could say that the symbol "table" refers to computers, and thus the proposition "tables are usually made of wood" would be false. In a debate over that proposition, however, it is clear that I would not be able to argue in the manner above, because no reasonable person would agree that the symbol "table" in the proposition in question would be used in the way I am attempting to use it. In the philosophical tradition, all *commonly accepted* definitions of omnipotence are incoherent due to my arguments. It is the way people actually use the word "omnipotence" that is relevant, not just whatever hypothetical usages my opponent can think of. It is not my burden to tie definitions to symbols, but rather to deal with the *meanings* of the symbols in a consistent manner. "Omnipotence, as defined in the Qur"an, means Allah has power over all that which is willed - by Himself - into existence. In that sense, the definition of Omnipotence is fundamentally coherent, the same way "unmarried men are bachelors" is." I do not see how this avoids the problem I have pointed out, since "having power" implies an unlimited range of actions, which, as I have shown, is incoherent. Even if, as my opponent is likely to argue, "having power" means "having power within certain limits", it is clear that, *within those limits*, there are no further limits, which is absurd, since positing limits in the first place requires both sides of the limits to be known, a contradiction in itself if the limits are truly limits. 3 & 4. My opponent has not even attempted to tackle this point. His case rests on the idea that one can equivocate freely, substituting "a conclusion" (c) with "a conclusion as justified by x and y" (c'). I have shown that this is mere sophistry, and that c' is inherently different from c, so, when I say that c' is made false by its premisses being false, I am *not* making a statement about c in a vacuum. This neutralizes my opponent's rebuttals. 5. No reasonable person would disagree that the essence of religions is the existence of a transcendent God. A religion without such a God would not be a religion, and, thus, religions are inexorably intertwined with God. God permeates them completely. Again, this is merely an argument from definition. 10. "Well, Pro just made his case ten times harder to establish." I have not changed my argument at all. It has been, from the start, based around nonsense. "given that not every irrational statement is a nonsensical one, Pro is required to prove how all tenets of the Abrahamic faiths are nonsensical!" I have already done this via my attack on omnipotence. I have shown it to be an ungraspable concept, and therefore it can have no truth-grounds; it is impossible to say what "omnipotence" means, and all attempts which have been made to do so have ended in failure. Asserting "omnipotence" requires one to eliminate the means one used to do so, ergo it is self-contradictory. Quoting Wittgenstein: "4.46 Among the possible groups of truth-conditions there are two extreme cases. In the one case the proposition is true for all the truth-possibilities of the elementary propositions. We say that the truth- conditions are tautological. In the second case the proposition is false for all the truth- possibilities. The truth-conditions are self-contradictory. In the first case we call the proposition a tautology, in the second case a contradiction. 4.461 The proposition shows what it says, the tautology and the contradiction that they say nothing. The tautology has no truth-conditions, for it is unconditionally true; and the contradiction is on no condition true. Tautology and contradiction are without sense." "- "Socrates is dead" literally, in the strictest of senses, means "Socrates is mortal"." Only if the senseful premiss "All dead things are mortal" is accepted, which is done nowhere in the syllogism. " A => B does not imply B (as justified by A) => A!" Is this not clearly false? B (as justified by A) (B') surely does necessitate A *when B' is assumed*, for B' is only asserted iff A. B' iff A B' Therefore, A This holds water, and therefore my argument stands.