But I maintained that it is not incoherent. In particular, it assumes the unargued sub-conclusion of modal versions of the Ontological Argument. I also argued earlier that the objectivity of Christian morality suffers from two other problems. First, it has no rational way of deciding between conflicting claims of divine revelation and, second, it has no way of deciding between conflicting interpretations of allegedly Christian revelation. Frame maintains that the truth of Christian revelation is shown by historical investigation while I maintain that historical evidence for the truth of Christianity is very weak.
Frame wisely hesitates to get involved in a protracted historical debate.
I too have no desire to enter such a debate online. Readers of our debate on the Internet should study our respective works and decide for themselves whether historical scholarship has established the truth of the Resurrection, the Incarnation, the Virgin with any acceptable degree of probability. However, one point should be borne in mind in any examination of the evidence. As I argue in a forthcoming paper, even for Christian historians such events should have extremely low initial probability and should require extraordinarily strong independent evidence before they are accepted. Whether such evidence is available is the key question.