[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Because it was YOU originally claiming that when one evaluates it form a mathematical standpoint you get a result different from the result a mathmetican would get.


[/ QUOTE ]

You've completely misrepresented Tx's position throughout this argument. The orginal statement Tx responded to was this:

[ QUOTE ]

So religions are born. Many religions. And even though the sheer number of these religions should be yet another reason to doubt their validity about specific issues lots of people don't.


[/ QUOTE ]


His response:

[ QUOTE ]

I only said that opposing relgions are likely to exist even if the Bible is true because of what the Bible says about Satan.


[/ QUOTE ]

and
[ QUOTE ]

Basically, I'm not saying any of that. I am not speaking of a prediction or a prophecy. I am not speaking in general terms. I am saying that the existence of other religions is consistent with what the Bible says about the nature of God and the nature of Satan. I didn't say that this was evidence the Bible is true. I said that other religions being in existence is NOT evidence the Bible is false.



[/ QUOTE ]


Tx isn't saying anything about detractors in general. He's saying there are many false religions which is explained by the Bible, so the existence of the religions are not an argument against Christianity. I've said much the same in different terms. More than that, the Bible goes into much detail about man's nature and explains why so few follow God and instead indulge in idolatry. But you're trying to argue as if Tx had said "The Bible says people will disagree with God's word" and therefore we shouldn't take notice of detractors.

He also said this:

[ QUOTE ]

Extra information about the theory? How about evaluating the theory itself? Regardless, the extra information, as you call it, about Christianity is not that the Bible predicts other religions. That's not it.


[/ QUOTE ]

So he's denying your mischaracterizaton of his argument. His argument is that the Bible explains why there are false religions. And it isn't just a bare explanation, but includes facts about human nature that are obviously true. If the vitamin salesmen showed that doctors' income went down in areas where vitamins are sold they would have a case for what they claim about doctors' motivation. Or if the salemen said that the doctors' ulterior motives aren't evidence that vitamins are good for you, just that the doctors' statements aren't evidence that they aren't.

One other observation:

Suppose there are 100 worldviews only one of which can be correct and the other 99 are wrong. Your argument would apply to all the worldviews equally because each has 99 detractors. But the existence of the detractors can't itself be an argument against any one worldview. You might have a case if 90% of the world agreed on one worldview and that the only other worldview is wrong. From a strictly human viewpoint there would be an initial presumption that the 10% WV is suspect. But that's not the situation. So I don't see how opposition to any one religion is evidence the religion is false. Maybe we actually have to look at content instead of taking polls - even polls of "smart" people.