All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

I shall thus post mine. Preface: - I should remind the voters that the burden of proof lies with Pro, thus by refuting his case, I win. Case/Rebuttals: - Without further ado! Pro, basically, made the following argument: 1. All infinite proprieties are undefinable, 2. Omnipotence, being a infinite propriety, is necessarily an incoherent concept, [ follows from (1. ) ] 3. All conclusions based on an irrational premise are irrational, 4. All conclusions which follow from God being Omnipotent are irrational. [ follows from (2. ) & (3. ) ] 5. All tenets of all Abrahamic religions follow from God being Omnipotent, 6. All tenets of all Abrahamic religion are irrational. [ follows from (4. ) & (5. ) ] 7. All Abrahamic religions are irrational. [ follows from (6. ) ] 8. All things which are irrational are bad, 9. Abrahamic religions are all bad. [ follows from (7. ) & (8. ) ] 10. All things which are irrational are indistinguishable, 11. Abrahamic religions are indistinguishable. [ follows from (7. ) & (10. ) ] 12. All things which are indistinguishable must bear the same judgement, 13. Abrahamic religions must bear the same judgment. [ follows from (11. ) & (12. ) ] C. Therefore, Abrahamic religions are all equally bad. [ follows from (9. ) & (13. ) ] - Let’s figure out if the above argument holds water. 1. False. An infinite propriety is indeed definable, otherwise we wouldn’t have something called Set Theory or Calculus or… Here is an example, the infinite series: Sum [1 > ∞] [1/2^n] = 1. Looks pretty definable to me. This pretty much negates the entirety of Pro’s case. Nonetheless, let’s take this few steps further. 2. False, for Pro’s concept of Omnipotence rests on a False premise, thus the concept is not necessarily incoherent. Even if we concede that Pro’s definition of Omnipotence is incoherent, this of course does not extend to all possible definitions of Omnipotence, which Pro has yet to prove, given he has the burden of proof. 3. False, for A => B does not preserve Falsehood, rather Truth. That is, if A is True, then B is also True, whereas, if A is False, B is not necessarily False. 4. False, as per (3. ). 5. Obviously False. But since Pro has the burden of proof, it’s up to him to prove otherwise, which he can’t do. 6. Invalid syllogism, for both its premises are False. Again, it’s up to Pro to prove that all tenets of all Abrahamic religions are irrational, which is evidently an impossible task to accomplish. 7. Invalid, for it follows from an invalid syllogism. 8. False, for what is irrational is not necessarily bad. 9. Invalid, for it follows from False premises. 10. False, for A is False & B is False does not imply A = B! 11. False, for it follows form False premises & is demonstrably Untrue, given the fact that Islam =/= Christianity =/= Judaism. 12. Sure, the law of non-contradiction. 13. False, for Abrahamic religions are distinguishable, thus must not bear the same judgment. C. Invalid conclusion, for it rests on False & Invalid premises. => So, basically, Pro’s argument has been dismantled from the ground up. It would be interesting to see how he intends to pick up the pieces. - Now, beside the basic argument Pro advanced, he made other blunders in the way, which says a lot about the incoherence of his though on top of the incoherence of his arguments. For instance, the alleged false syllogism: 1. All ducks are red 2. Socrates is dead, and we have killed him C. Socrates is mortal - Which may be be reformulated into, 1. A 2. B C. B - I understand Pro’s attempt at an example, though bad example. If we assume the premises of the above syllogism to be True, then so is the conclusion, necessarily by definition (the conclusion is the second premise itself). Thus, the syllogism is fine, regardless if its first premise is True or False or non-sequitur. - Or: "For when a conclusion is spoken, all prior groundwork is implied. " - False. A => B does not imply B => A! - Or, or …etc.