All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

I do not have any problems with his formulation of my argument except for two: premisses 8 & 9 (this will be expanded upon later). I will defend my case point-by-point, in much the same manner that my opponent has presented his criticisms. 1. My opponent has, instead of attacking my argument, merely given an example which supposedly refutes me. This fails on the grounds that he gives no reason to accept that the equation he gives has sense, while I have given a full logical argument proving that it does not. Quoting the dropped argument: "To grasp the nature of the infinite, one must be able to transcend it and look at it in its totality, which requires an escape from the grasp of the infinite. " Unless my opponent can *show* exactly how the infinite can be conceived at all, this point stands. 2. By definition, omnipotence must have infinite qualities, for it implies that the omnipotent being can both do all that is possible and all that is not possible. If either of these is denied, my opponent must accept that there are restrictions on omnipotence, which is a contradiction in terms. For logic forms a limit of the world and of all sensical things, and therefore an omnipotent being is either bound by logic (making him not-omnipotent) or able to transcend logic (making him inherently ungraspable by finite beings which must operate under the framework of logic - else A is not A), and both destroy the concept. My opponent has not offered a reason to believe that the definition of omnipotence I have used is not the commonly-accepted definition. I cannot possibly be expected to refute all uses of the word "omnipotence" - it's clearly reasonable for me to only have to defeat the term as used by theologians, and all things point to my having done so. 3 & 4. I have never claimed that a conclusion must be false if it does not follow from the premisses. I have argued that a conclusion, *in the context of the conceptualization surrounding it*, which is built on meaningless premisses must, itself, be meaningless. The terms *of the argument taken as a whole* become nonsense, for a syllogism must imply some relationship between the premisses, and this is much different from taking any premiss on its own, apart from the others. 5. It's nearly self-evident that Abrahamic religions are based on there being an Abrahamic God. I do not see how anyone could disagree with this premiss. It is essentially a given, and no reasonable voter would penalize me for this, else he should also penalize me for "assuming that English is able to communicate arguments" or some other nonsensical critique of common-sense assumptions. 6 & 7. These stand in light of my defence of the previous points. 8 & 9. Nowhere in my case had I implied that the irrational is bad. I have merely shown that all Abrahamic religions are equal, and, therefore, insofar as one is bad (or not bad), the others is equally bad (or not bad). Zero is still a value; if all Abrahamic religions are perfect, then they still share the same amount of badness. 10. Firstly, there is a distinction between something being false and something being nonsense. Falsity requires there to be some content which is false, while nonsense does not require content: it is the lack of content. My opponent has not even attempted to respond to my justification for this premiss, reproduced here: "Nonsense is simply the lack of sense; there are no other qualities which can be ascribed to it, for, if there were, the nonsense would be sense. Therefore, all propositions of nonsense are equally empty and have no differences except in arbitrary linguistic form. " 11, 13, & C. These stand in light of my defence of their premisses. On the Syllogism Example: The *structure* of the syllogism imparts a quality to the premisses beyond those of the premisses when taken individually. B does not follow from the premisses, for premiss B is not equivalent to the conclusion, and there is no senseful premiss linking the two. Therefore, regardless of the truth of the premisses alone, the content of the *parts of the syllogism when looked at in the syllogism* is null. "A => B does not imply B => A! " The point is that "B" is not just "B": it is "B as justified by A". They are two very different propositions. Back to Con!