Paul Crowley

I wouldn't get too impressed with that either. Most of the more sophisticated apologetics in religion work this way: find a tricky area of philosophy that's really hard to reason about properly, propose God as a solution. You haven't actually solved anything, but now it's *so* hard to reason about that even seeing that you haven't solved anything can be hard, but the result is that the debates sound terribly sophisticated and so it can seem that there's a reasonable case for both sides. There isn't; the King is still in the altogether.