All Abrahamic religions are equally bad

& I also like to remind the voters that the burden of proof is on Pro. Counter-Rebuttals: 1. Apparently Pro doesn’t understand how generalisations work. Premise (1. ): “All infinite proprieties are undefinable” entails that all proprieties which are infinite, without exception, are undefinable (inconceivable, ungraspable…). In case there is an exception, such as the counter-example I provided (“Sum [1 > ∞] [1/2^n]”, among countless others), then premise (1. ) is False. Period. Pro somehow expects his general assertion to be somehow axiomatically true without proof! !! 2. One: ‘table’ can not possibly refer to ‘computer’, the same way ‘white’ can not possibly refer to ‘black’. This clearly leads to a contradiction in terms. Possible definitions of a word are those bound by the linguistic & contextual meanings of the word. Two: Pro claims his definition of Omnipotence extends to all its commonly accepted philosophical definitions without giving any reason whatsoever why is that the case! Thus, his claim should be dismissed as bare assertion. Three: Pro’s contention against the definition of Omnipotence I provided is a total straw-man, for he ignored completely said definition & repeated his argument against his own definition, which has nothing to do with mine. More elaborately, the terminology ‘limitations’, ‘range of actions’, ‘within limits’… is completely irrelevant to the definition I provided the same way it is completely irrelevant to the statement “bachelors are unmarried men”. 3. & 4. One: as I stated in my previous round, Pro’s contention here does nothing to undermine my argument. To elaborate, Pro claims that "a conclusion c as justified by x and y" is False if its premises (x & y) are False. This basically translates to the syllogism: P1. x, P2. y, C. c , being False if x & y are False. Well, we all know this is obviously False, blunder which surely must’ve momentarily escaped Pro’s mind: (+) Ex. P1. all birds are potatoes, P2. Samantha is a bird, C. Samantha is potato ; P1. & P2. are False, but the syllogism (C. as justified by P1. & P2. ) obviously isn’t. - Two: regardless of what Pro says, the following conclusions of his argument do NOT rest on the veracity of syllogisms containing premise (2. ), they rather rest on the veracity of the conclusions which follow from premise (2. ) themselves. Hence, Pro’s contention does not hurt in the least my rebuttal. 5. Again, Pro had to establish that all tenets of Abrahamic religions necessarily follow from God being Omnipotent, thus a given tenet (tenet_n) must pertain to the following formula: P1. God being Omnipotent, P2. ? ?? C. tenet_n. => Now, we don’t know what P2. should represent in this case! & Pro has merely assumed it exists without given us any viable reason why this is the case. Furthermore, scriptures themselves offer countless arguments that don’t even involve God. From where could Pro possibly come up with his generalisation about these faiths if it entails the dismissal of scriptures which make up very said faiths! 6. & 7. Always refuted. 10. Pro has not shown how all the tenets of Abrahamic faiths are senseless, as having no sense to them at all. He barely said some contradictory things himself, such as: “it is impossible to say what "omnipotence" means” while making such judgement on a definition he came up with it in the first place! !! For instance, with the Abrahamic faiths, there is the concept of ‘Charity’, the sense of which is pretty much real. - Also, quotes must be referenced, otherwise they are to be dismissed. 11. & 13. & C. Thus, always refuted. Only if the senseful premiss "All dead things are mortal" is accepted, which is done nowhere in the syllogism. - Doesn’t need to be, for it’s true by definition. B (as justified by A) (B') surely does necessitate A *when B' is assumed*, for B' is only asserted iff A. - False. That would be affirming the consequent. LOL! Conclusion: - To recapitulate, across this debate, Pro has chosen to deal in equivocations, bare assertions, straw-mans… to advance his case. At one point, he talks about False conclusions, at another he straw-mans his own argument into talking about meaningless ‘syllogisms’, which he likes to equivocate again with ‘nonsense’. When talking about truth-value, ‘nonsense’, ‘meaningless’… are the wrong terminology to use, for these are not truth-judgements, merely linguistic or conjectural judgements. More so, Pro’s entire argument from the grounds up rests on False, undefended or dubious premises. Given he has the burden of proof, this means he has failed his case entirely. Particularly, Pro either failed to prove straw-maned, equivocated, or assumed the following: 1. All infinite proprieties are undefinable, 2. Omnipotence, being an infinite propriety, is necessarily an incoherent concept, 3. All conclusions based on an irrational premise are irrational, 5. All tenets of all Abrahamic religions follow from God being Omnipotent, 10. All things which are irrational are indistinguishable, => Now, even if only one of the above contentions is undefended, False or invalid, Pro’s case will still fail, as it does indeed.