Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Claiming that theres a paradox does not do that - it's explicit acknowledgement of the issue of logical incoherence.  

AKA, a mystery, a miracle....

This all started because I was replying to Kloro's presentation of the Kalam and saying to him that its veracity was dependent on specific metaphysical assumptions. Make different assumptions or use different first principles and you get different theological and philosophical outcomes. And the most important thing to understand about first principles is that there will never be universal agreement about what they are. Over the years I have found myself in many vigorous debates over Thomisic concepts during which I realized, the debate was not about any specific demonstration; but rather, about the underlying ontologies. The 5W only work in within the metaphyical framework of moderate realism. They do not work for nominalists. The Kalam works in eternalism (kinda) but not in presentism. And it seems to me anyway, that one's proof of God should come before you've extablished a theory of time.