But it is not a metaphysical system. You will not find within it complete accounts of phenomena, nor will you find satisfactory answers to every question. What you will find are all things necessary to life and Godliness. There has to be some point of contact between God and man, between creator and creature. There is no analogy without incarnation. I'm not talking about making people uncomfortable, but about cornering people. Cornering has to do with the tactic of treating your interlocutor as an opponent rather than saying with God "come, let us reason together." You can never allow yourself to succumb to the temptation to be adversarial in your apologetic. When you try to corner someone, you have allowed yourself to forget that the goal is to win the person, not to score points. Trying to back someone into a corner doesn't work for the simple reason that in any argument (not just apologetic), that is the position where a person is least likely to be convinced. Oh dear, then no human has ever had a successful argument. By leading you around in circles in your attempt to deconstruct him. True, but a system may be apparently consistent in both regards, while still not actually consistent. Yes and no. Yes in the sense that he is in an attitude of rebellion. No in the sense that he is not being disingenuous given that he really believes his own view to be the truth. In order to understand him, you must do so on his own terms, not on your assumptions about what he thinks. You have to read him fairly. Reductionism is as unhelpful when used by Christian apologists as at any other time. Other than their rejection of Christianity, this is debatable.