:) Question is, what does it purport to be? This is probably not the venue for this, but it is a rabbit hole, that's for sure. if you're really interested in a

:) Question is, what does it purport to be? This is probably not the venue for this, but it is a rabbit hole, that's for sure. if you're really interested in a respectful disagreement, I'll happily share my email. I have the same open door, if anyone can give me a rational basis that supports their truth claims (without opening the door to claims they reject), then I'll change my view. I have, once. I was an evangelical, I'm not now. > we will have to agree to disagree ... it does so by Why is that disagreeing? I've argued from the outset that it uses tools of rationality in its defence of doctrine. My point has been that it begins with the certainty of the truth of its claims. And you haven't said what else apologetics does other than defend doctrine, just said we disagree on that point. You've not been forthcoming on examples, so far, here's another example. To be clear, it isn't a problem for me that defence (apologia, 1 Pet 3:15) is the point, just that you seem to think I'm missing something, but haven't given an example.