[andyfox]

Doesn't seem to me he ignored what you said. He challenged it. The crux of your argument, if I understand it correctly, was summarized by Pair the Board as:

"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."

You said:
"When you have an explanation within the theory as to why the detractors are misguided, it discounts the argument, YOUR argument, that the mere existence of the detractors is enough to doubt the validity of the theory."

This cannot be right. If I say the world is flat, it does not discount the arguments of others that the world is round because I say that there will be others who will say the world is round, even if I give a reason why they will say it. You talk about the "mere" existence of destractors. What is "mere" is the claims of the Bible that there will be detractors and its apologists then using this claim as "evidence" for its truth. David's quack medicine purveyor analogy was apt.

If I understand David correctly, he is saying that if I say to 3-bet with 7-2 offsuit, and 99% of others say no, fold, it's more likely they're right and I'm wrong. And if I say to 3-bet with A-A, and 99% of others say fold, it's still more likely they're right and I'm wrong.