Everything this Apologetics video is deceptive about.

 

Her concern:

"Book says a fantastic thing" is actually a bad reason to think "fantastic thing is true".

In reply, his first argument is:

1.
"Book says a fantastic thing".

My observation about that:

In and of itself, this would count as:
Misunderstanding the assignment.

However, there's a clever reason he leads with this. 

His next attempt at bullshittery:

2. More specifically, "Book says my guy is the creator of the universe".

My observations about that:

A.
"The scriptures". 

 This coined expression packs a
* subtle yet powerfully effective,
* culturally conditioned,
* backdoor psych-hack. 

It's an attempt to evoke culturally programmed sacred regard for a body of texts.

Calling them "Scripture" is meant to evoke a royal and ancient air of intrigue and authority. 

These aren't just "texts", these are "Scripture". 

 But this is only the first salvo in that preacher's attempt to infiltrate, conquer, and colonize her mind.

 He's attempting to maneuver her mind into adopting his arbitrarily positive bias about Christian-canonical texts.

He wants her to think of Christian-canonical texts as part of:

 An intrinsic and inseparable continuum of texts that includes Hebrew religious texts. 

It's a subtle way of attempting to erase a crucial distinction that the critic starts off holding onto.

She led with agreeableness towards the non-Jesus God-bits. 

She then draws a line in the sand between:

a.) texts predicated on a concept of "God" she's agreeable towards

vs

b.) texts predicated on a "Jesus" which seem to her as being implausible and unsupportable.

In reply, he attempts to #Market the Jesus-specific God-bits as the originally intended expression of the God-bits she is favorable towards.

Basically, his gambit is:

 He was glad she had no barriers to accepting the general biblical God-bits.

Armed with that knowledge, the preacher sets out to retroactively redefine the general God-bits.

He's about to market some Jesus-specific God-bits as the intended meaning of the general God-bits.

This line of preaching isn't really "reasoning".
It's just lens-reshaping. 

 Through this method, he can sneak his personal, subjective, and irrational interpretation of "Jesus" in through the less specific "God" port of entry;
smuggling Jesus "as God" into her mind via that vulnerable/open point of access.

If her mind were better informed and more rational, the general "God"-bit wouldn't have been available to exploit, because:

A sufficiently informed, rationally mature, and logically consistent mind ... would have held the exact same objection to the general God-bits, because those bits ALSO amount to nothing more than religious claims: 

a.) made without any objectively good evidence, 

which are also 

b.) radically contrary to available evidence.

But she doesn't realize any of this.

And so,
...
 The moment she makes this specific GAP known
(that gap in her Bullshit-dection filters),
...
She was unwittingly directing that conman to a vulnerability he could exploit. 

In order to attempt this, the preacher tries to take advantage of the woman's lack of relevant knowledge and clarity. 

He's banking on the hope that she won't realize certain things.

Which things?

1. Even the general "God"-bits are just layers of:
ancient rumors
+
later-developed translations and interpretations
... about magical entities living in a magical kingdom. 

Mind you, I am *NOT* going "hard atheist" on this point.

I happen to think something in the vaguely general direction of 
* deism,
* pantheism,
* ancient stoicism,
* Taoism,
* native/Indigenous-American spiritualism,
and
* pansychicism ...
all "lean towards" a truth beyond the veil. 

It just so happens that I know ENOUGH to logically and ethically rule out all such moral-authoritarian, boot-licking, magic-Daddy-themed, psychologically violent, deathcults. 

However, the young woman in that video, it would seem, had not yet matured into these discoveries. 

So here I am ... providing a play-by-play sports commentator view ... showing how a preacher was cheating at the game. 

So what else was the preacher hoping his target wouldn't realize?

2.