Credible/Honest Apologetics?

[Neo-Scholastic]

My point was that such paradoxes are not worth debating because there are prior assumptions. K is making a theological case based on a certain interpretation of time. Change that and the theology changes. It seems that many "answers" are really just stories that fit predetermined understanding about how the word works. 

This may be true. But here's the important part: the questions/paradoxes raised by skeptics also fit their predetermined understanding of the world, not to mention their numerous expectations of God.

I would not suggest otherwise. Everyone seems to consider his or her own conceptual framework the normative one of right thinking people. Personally I work very hard to see alternative ways of thinking as being valid on their own terms.