All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

Counter-Rebuttals: 1. It seems Pro ignored the example I gave. The infinite series “Sum [1 > ∞] [1/2^n]” is equal to “1”, thus precisely & completely definable. We know & conceive of what “1” exactly is. This is pretty basic maths stuff! Therefore, a concept which constitute an infinite property is not necessarily undefinable or incoherent. 2. Omnipotence, as a philosophical concept, is bound to have a philosophical definition, without which, no sound judgement or discussion may involve or stem from it. In this case, Pro has to demonstrate that all possible definitions of the concept ‘Omnipotence’ are necessarily incoherent. Starting from one definition, postulating it really has no definition, & then generalising on the rest, as Pro has done, isn’t going to cut it!!! More specifically, the Islamic notion of Omnipotence is defined in the Qur’an as: * “Allah has power over all things” = inna Allaha ‘ala kulli shayin qadeer (transliteration) => shayin = ‘thing’ in Arabic, derivative from the root verb ‘shaa’ literally meaning: “willed into existence”. In other words, 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. Whether that definition has existential import or not is irrelevant to the fact that the concept itself is incontestably coherent. 3. Pro’s attempt to confusion here is not going to work either. At first, my opponent claims to argue for “the argument based on false premises is meaningless”, & then concludes on the meaninglessness of the conclusions of such arguments (the tenets of the Abrahamic faiths). This, however, does not change my rebuttal. An argument which follows from false premises, or pertains to 'meaningless' syllogims, does not necessarily make its conclusions false (or meaningless)! 4. If the tenets of the Abrahamic faiths follow from supposedly false (or irrational or meaningless) premises, then in no way does that make them necessarily false (or irrational or meaningless), especially if said premises are not even false! Particularly, those which follow from God being Omnipotent! 5. Bare assertion. Pro needs to demonstrate how all tenets of the Abrahamic faiths follow from God being Omnipotent, not just state it & except us to take his word for it! This is obviously an impossible task to accomplish, for these religions relate statements about extremely numerous & variable subjects, most of which don’t pertain to God. 6. & 7. Thus still refuted. 8. & 9. I stand corrected. 10. Well, Pro just made his case ten times harder to establish. Now, he has to prove that all tenets of Abrahamic religions are effectively Nonsense, i.e. having absolutely no sense. It is evident that a statement may be irrational while still making sense. For instance, “she stole his thunder” is an irrational statement, for thunder can not be stolen! Yet, it has pretty understandable sense to it. Therefore, 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 see no conceivable way where this is possible. 11. & 13. & C. Thus still refuted. there is no senseful premiss linking the two - “Socrates is dead” literally, in the strictest of senses, means “Socrates is mortal”. They are two very different propositions. - Sure, still, A => B does not imply B (as justified by A) => A!