I'll be honest, lately I've been wondering about why I stay in the game. I've gotten a bit sick of hashing through arguments that can never really be answered, which is what the overwhelming majority of arguments really hit on when it comes to philosophy of religion.
This is a critique you'll hear often against metaphysics or philosophy in general, but I wanted to give a concrete example.
Enter this Capturing Christianity article aimed at responding to Schellenberg's Divine Hiddenness Argument. The author Brett Lunn is describing Christian philosopher Michael Rea's response.
I don't really mean to address the entire article so much as I want to point out the parts that exemplify the point I want to make here.