I'm afraid it was something less fun, but now that you mention it...
Let's consider the following statement:
S11: If Speakpigeon eats every small, edible, living thing she encounters, then Speakpigeon will eat a smurf.
We stipulate that in S11, the words 'if' and 'then' have the same meaning as in 'if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.', in the argument under discussion.
My question is: Is S11 true?
I take it that by smurf you don't mean the Belgian comic's fictional character, which should be written "Smurf", not "smurf". If that's what you meant, then the conditional is false since Smurfs are not real and cannot be eaten, even by a real Speakpigeon.
I also assume you don't mean the verb, that would make an ungrammatical sentence.
That being said, if a smurf was indeed a "
small, edible, living thing", that would still not make a true conditional since Speakpigeon would need first to encounter a smurf to get a chance to eat it and that would not be necessarily the case.
Anyway, I would assume that by now you would have clarified at least one issue here. So, could you explain for the benefit of all those who are still insisting on reading this thread?
EB
Yes, I can explain that, though I already did that more than once and did not convince you, so there are no guarantees.
Anyway, here's my next attempt:
First, you are correct in assuming I don't mean Smurf, etc. In fact, I meant the blue small funny looking people, etc., as described in the stories. But what I meant by it is pretty much
irrelevant, at least as long as I meant something by it (more below), which I did.
Second, you haven't said clearly whether you think S11 is false, though it seems to me it's implicitly what you hold (unless you think it's neither true nor false?). But in any case, your assessment that in order for S11 to be true Speakpigeon would need first to encounter a smurf to get a chance to eat it and that would not be necessarily the case, is mistaken. In fact, S11 is true. But the smurfs were not relevant. For example, consider:
S12: If Speakpigeon eats every small, edible, living thing she encounters, then Speakpigeon will rule the Earth for 1 billion years.
We stipulate that in S12, the words 'if' and 'then' have the same meaning as in 'if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.', in the argument under discussion. Is S12 true?
And again, the answer is: Yes, S12 is true. I hope you are getting the idea. Consider
S13: If Speakpigeon eats every small, edible, living thing she encounters, then the Earth is flat, the Moon Landing never happened, Elvis is alive, and the Rapture will happen before 2019.
We stipulate that in S13, the words 'if' and 'then' have the same meaning as in 'if Speakpigeon prays, then Speakpigeon's prayers will be answered.', in the argument under discussion. Is S13 true?
Easy enough: of course, S13 is true.
The reason all of those statements are true is that the antecedent 'Speakpigeon eats every small, edible, living thing she encounters' is false. As a matter of fact, you do not eat every small, edible, living thing that you encounter.
Now you might protest and say that in the ordinary sense of the words, those conditionals are false. Maybe, if the ordinary sense here is counterfactual, or some other colloquial usage, or at least one among those if there are more than one, etc. But the moment you choose to use the truth tables and claim the argument is valid, you are implying that you are using the conditional in a manner that renders S11 and S12 true. If you use different kinds of conditionals as if they were one - i.e., one kind of conditional to assess the truth of Premise 1, and then you switch to a different kind to use the truth table -, you equivocate, as Bomb#20 pointed out.
From a different perspective: if you say S11 is not true, then in that sense of 'if' and 'then', your argument to the conclusion that there is a god is invalid, and
you may not use the truth tables as you did to prove otherwise. The truth tables are simply not for that.
I sincerely hope that this time I convince you. If this also fails, I'm not sure what else to do. I'm running out of approaches.