Again - you are confusing your arguments.<quoted text>
But even I take the premise you made, which carry straw man argument because you cannot arrive to conclude by it that Allah isn't an absurd god, then I still don't see how faith plus his approach make pass Allah for a "valid god", if I can use that expression.
My claim of god being absurd is dervied after the main source that in that case was Quran. So yes ALSO bmz's god is absurd. He said a man cannot be god, so god is not anthropomorphic, but at the same time he believes in an anthropopatic god. Though the difference is little one cannot reject an anthropomorphic god (Yeshua) and accept without problem the existence of an anthropopatic god (Allah).
It's not the oneness of god that make the idea of god clearer or valid.
His approach is rude and fruitless when it comes to arrive to make points. I due to suggest to him to prove the fallacy of Christian doctrine by pointing out their proof, found in the Gospels, against Christians themselves, rather than making affermations backed up by nothing but his words.
Not to speak of his approach with Hadiths where he rejects them labeling to as tales when is more convenient but endorse them when he wants. Is also this approach clear?
Shamma and bmz are on the same level.
If you want to argue from the perspective of atheism - yes, all religion is absurd
But if you want to examine the internal logic - religion is based on faith. That is not absurd, that is a premise.
BMZ is monotheistic - by internal logic that makes more sense than arguing that ones polytheistic religion (Christianity) is monotheistic. The internal logic of the latter position is absurd.
Re" Hadiths - my understanding is that he holds them in the same status as us Jews hold the midrash. He is free to choose his premises, and I as a Jew, I dont see anything extraordinary about his position.
Re" rudeness - you yourself recently commented that there was nothing wrong with rudeness.