[/quote=HRG]Since theologians are free to create their own criteria of validity, that's not a big surprise. They in effect act as their own umpires.

So says the atheist who lives in a world ultimately governed by chance processes, who redefines chance so that it means something other than chance, and who must admit that the principles of logic are conventions, though uses them to bet his soul -- which doesn't really exist -- that God does not exist, and who acts as if these conventional principles are themselves rational and who also despises with moral indigination, intellectual dishonesty, though both "intellectual" and "dishonesty" are mere conventions and personal preferences from which you express nothing more than a bunch of chemical reactions that have over millions of years evolved to be what they are whether what they are is rational or not, accurate or not, or true or not.

And you suppose that the apologist isn't rational? Rational in your worldview is a bunch of chemical reactions that you bet against all odds just so happens to be truth. No man in his right mind would bet on that unless they had an axe to grind with God. It appears that only atheists fit that bill.