Responding to Kenneth Winsmann On His Supposed Lying

Kenneth Winsmann is a Catholic who has darkened these halls with his presence for a few months now. Some of my commenters don't like him, okay. They think he's dense, okay. I think that goes without saying since he's deluded just like all other believers. But some of my commenters think he's also dishonest. That's their judgment not mine. I think he's testing his own faith in the best way he knows, which is to comment here at the best site for testing one's Christian faith, a site that has an unusually high number of intelligent commenters. I don't think so because any Christian who writes this comment in defense of the truth doesn't need to lie.

Perhaps I'm just slow to make that accusation, or just slow. I may be slow to discover a liar because I'm not myself one, and have been conned a few times in my life because it takes a con-artist to spot a con-artist. I have been schooled because of my experiences to see them clearer. But when I discover an unmistakable lie it changes things for me. Once I find a clear instance of lying it makes me re-evaluate all of the other times I had suspicions but didn't have enough evidence to say so. I had previously defended William Lane Craig from that accusation. But in my book, How to Defend the Christian Faith: Advice From An Atheist, I have a chapter on liars for Jesus where I show one unmistakable instance of a lie during his debate with Stephen Law. Now I won't defend him anymore. I have also made that accusation against three others after dealing with them for several years. I have done so against Randal Rauser, and David Marshall and Jeff Lowder. I think I presented good logical dispassionate reasons why I think so in each case, that most everyone has either agreed with me about, or in the case of Lowder, just asserted they don't like it without answering any of my reasons for saying so. Apparently friendship and previous endorsements of a dishonest person take precedence over the evidence. Shoot the messenger rather than deal with the message! Claim the messenger is unstable. Do whatever you can, as in the case of Rauser, to minimize my influence because I soundly trashed him in our book.

But Kenneth? Not so much. So I'll deal with his argument against testing for prayer shortly. In the meantime I'll open for discussion the question of how we can know when a Christian is actually consciously lying, from merely being deluded?