 The issue that divides Hasker and Stump and the parties they represent is perhaps impossible to resolve. Hasker demands a “coherent view of God’s nature,” one that satisfies and can be seen to satisfy the exigencies of the discursive intellect. Hasker demands that God fit within the discursive framework, which implies that he have properties the way creatures do, exist the way creatures do, and so on. Stump could reasonably claim that Hasker is making an inappropriate demand, one that does not respect the divine transcendence.