In response to my claim that John Loftus makes incoherent remakes in explaining his outsider test, like:
* It is impossible that any religion with a non-nebulous god pass the outsider test
** It is possible that a religion with a non-nebulous god pass the outsider test.
War On Error left this defense of Loftus in the combox:
It's a priori vs a posteriori. Loftus is saying, on the one hand, there is nothing a priori that prevents Christianity from passing the OTF. He's trying to show that it is a fair test and then challenging up and coming Christian thinkers to actually apply it. However, when Christians come to him and tell him they've applied it and it has passed, he compares his a posteriori conclusions to theirs. And of course, in a world full of disputes about everything at all levels, we expect disagreement there.
That's really rather ridiculous. Apart from the fact that it is lame to claim that because you didn't pass a test no one else can (I suppose megalomaniacs think that way; or perhaps third-graders who fail a math test), this "defense" supports the Mormon burning of the bosom test for faith, MBBTF.
This has been pointed out by J.P. Holding. If WAR ON ERROR meets up with a Mormon, the Mormon will tell WOE (Ben) that he needs to pray and see if it isn't revealed to him the Mormonism is true. If Ben takes the test and says it doesn't work, the Mormon simply "compares his a posteriori experience" to Ben's. The Mormon will say that Ben didn't "really" take the test, just like Loftus says to whoever claims to have passed the OTF, like Victor Reppert. Of course, the Mormon will say that it is a priori possible that the test fail, so it is a fair test.
Similarly, Word of Faith pastors will often argue that if you have enough faith then certain blessings will come. They ask you to test God's goodness. Since it is a test, then it is a priori possible to pass it; however, in experience, the pastors compare all reports to their own a posteriori experience (say, the notice their mansion, the Benz in the driveway, the Rolex on their wrist, etc) and claim that the parishioners didn't "really" have enough faith.
War on Error bet on a losing horse. If he stayed true to his moniker, he'd be pointing out the flaws rather than trying to salvage planks from a sinking and worthless vessel.