Time for a logic lesson

Okay yeah, my two proofs are flawed. Duh. Like you can use logic to make theological statements at all.

But so far, all anybody's objected to is a premise. What the objections amount to is a discussion of semantics, but that's beside the point; if the only problem with the proof is with a premise, then the logic must be sound.

As I discussed earlier with Wolfqueen on AIM, I find it curious so far that nobody has correctly identified the logical flaw in these proofs. Again, I stress that rejecting a premise is not the same as pointing out a flaw in the logic. Perhaps there is some vague sense that something is wrong, but without the proper cognitive tools to work with the lay mind seizes the first apparently irrelevant statement it sees as a sort of one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-others reflex; i.e. "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition".

So I issue a challenge. The first person (not counting WQ because I told her, or EmP because he's English) to correctly identify the logical flaw in the previous two proofs (it's the same flaw in each) will get...something...befitting their achievement. Bonus points if you find flaws I did not anticipate, though for either task you'll need to contend with my counter-arguments. :)

I'll let Pup take the first shot. Should be easy, since you spotted "quite a few" flaws in the second one.

Hint: The flaw has not to do with terms like "nobody". That's a question of vocabulary, not logic.