What are you saying specifically?
I'm saying that you committed the straw man fallacy.
I don't know that you've established that since you never actually made a statement but rather returned a question to my questions.
Nothing that you've quoted thus far from me was a question of any form so this statement of yours is bizarre.
I'm sure that it does sound like word salad to you, NV. And I would expect that to be the case for anyone who tries to take up new subject matter. However, as far as name-dropping, I can't recall any "no-names," since I consider that just about (almost) anyone with a PhD might have something interesting and/or pertinent to say.
You'd think so, but you have to be careful. "Hi I'm Dr. Chuck Missler. Let me talk to you about quantum mechanics and how it relates to Christianity." Never mind the fact that his PhD was in engineering. My favorite moment was when he opened a jar of peanut butter and "explained" that the theory of evolution predicted that there should be a new form of life inside. The TV show identified him as Dr. Chuck Missler in text on the screen while he was saying this. I failed to see liberal Christians tripping over themselves to correct this guy, seeing as how evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis any more than the theory of gravity has anything to say about where gravity actually comes from (not to mention the fact that he gave no explanation as to how a jar of peanut butter should be considered ideal conditions for this).
And of course there's also "Dr." Kent Hovind, who I believe wrote his thesis in crayon on the back of a children's book.
To be clear, I wouldn't have argued with Dr. Missler about engineering. But I found him to be extremely dishonest in the way he presented himself. If your PhD is not relevant to a lecture you're giving, either don't introduce yourself with your title or else go out of your way to explain that the topic of discussion is not your area of expertise.
Speaking of expertise, how, exactly, can one legitimately say that one is an "expert" in theology? If you have a PhD in theology, even from an accredited university, then... what? How is that an actual discipline? There's nothing to which you're held accountable. Historians have the historical method, scientists have the scientific method, mathematicians have proofs and rigor... theologians have what, exactly? A bunch of opinions that are not only unsubstantiated, but entirely unfalsifiable?
At the end of your song and dance we come back to the point where God must, at some point, directly communicate with his creation if he wants his creation to believe in him. Is the best method for this really to reveal yourself to just one prophet who then disseminates the information? Obviously not, since here we are arguing about it. Again, to the point of this thread, demons don't sit around arguing with angels about the existence of God. So obviously if God wants us to believe he exists, he's not done a great job. Conversely, if your god doesn't exist, the only option you really have is this prophet-to-masses system because a non-existent god is not going to do it himself.
On the flip side, not only could Satan interfere with the transmission of truth, he could also potentially distract and deceive someone like me.........or even you...when we attempt to understand the truth. (ala Screwtape)
OK... so... how is it exactly, then, that you are sure that the New Testament isn't a lie from Satan? Consider all the things that the New Testament has changed. You're not sacrificing animals to Jehovah (Jehovah is on record as finding animal sacrifice to be very pleasurable). You're worshiping a being not named Jehovah (Jehovah is on record hating this, as it is against his very first commandment). Basically, the New Testament completely gutted the Jewish religion. How do you know this wasn't engineered by Satan? Or to put it another way, if you were Satan in the year 500BC, and you wanted to lead the children of Israel astray, what would you have actually done differently? What would you change about Christianity? What events did Jesus perform that Satan couldn't have? If Satan is responsible for other fake religions, like Islam, why couldn't he be responsible for Christianity? If Satan is not responsible for Islam, then Islam is an invention of man; by what grounds couldn't Christianity be the same?
OK... do a ctrl+F and see how many hits you get for "demon" in the Old Testament.
It's only an apparent plot hole to you, NV.
I'm not sensing much effort on your part in addressing my points.
...the reason you haven't seen a theory of demonology that can withstand any scrutiny is because 1) there is no real theory or comprehensive explanation about it that we can know about, and 2) if Screwtapian type beings exist (i.e. fallen angels), their power and influence can only be overridden by....God. So, welcome to the Matrix (or really to Rene Descartes' demon haunted world, along with Descartes' Foundationalist mistakes).
So basically you've got nothing, right?