I'm very glad we can have this dicussion and I greatly appreciate your concerns. As you said, a writer needs to be clear and what this shows me is that I have some work to do in that area. I'm thinking through all of this and asking myself how I can be more clear in the future so as to better communicate my main point.

Again, you've mentioned many issues so we'll have to take them one by one. I don't agree that internalism requires the infinite regress you've said it does, or that the practical and psychological examples of why a person cannot do what they ought to do show that the ought/can principle is not relevant for my point. Again, these additional issues will take some time to open up. My sense is that at the most basic level, the internalist/externalist distinction, and the want/can distinction, collapse. But that will take some explaining.

"Clarity" does go into these issues in a little more detail in a section on whether the need for regeneration can be used as an excuse for unbelief. But these issues are not what that book is about. It may not go into the kind of detail you are looking for. Please judge that book for what it is trying to do, and feel free to let me know what you think I left out. There, as well as in this forum, I'm trying to communicate to a general audience rather than to one that is specializing in philosophy/theology. The goal of that book is not to cover the finer points of the "free will/predestination" topic. The goal is to say that Christians should be able to show that whatever beliefs are used to replace belief in God are inexcusable.

From the beginning of your replies the repeating issue is with the nature of "ought" and "can." This is because I maintain that if we are guilty for not knowing God, as Christianity maintains, then we must be able to know God. This "able" is in the sense of natural ability. It would not make sense to say of a plant that it is guilty for not knowing God. Similarly, if the natural ability of man is such that the knowledge of God is not available, then this is not something we can be held responsible for.

But this does not mean that the Holy Spirit is not needed for regeneration after the Fall. Instead, it means there is a clear general revelation so that there is no excuse, and that Christians should be able to show this. Consider this scenario:

unbeliever: I couldn't know God because I wasn't regenerated.
believer: so you believe God exists and didn't regenerate you?
unbeliever: no, I don't believe that God exists, but if God had regenerated me then I would have believed.
believer: so you are blaming a being that you don't think exists for not regenerating you to believe in said being?
unbeliever: yes.

As an excuse this is pretty bad--inexcusable. I think the believer can say: setting aside questions about regeneration, why not simply believe? I think the unbeliever will say something that adds up to: I don't want to.

So I am ok granting that people could have an initial immediate sense of God (sensus divinitatis), that this was lost in the Fall, and that they need regeneration to restore it. But I also believe that they suppress it through unbelief, which means they replace it with some other beliefs that are not true. All I'm calling us to do is to show that whatever beliefs they replace "God" with are inexcusable.

Moving to issue 2 (I'm hesitant to address 2 issues in a single posting, I don't want things to get muddy). I don't think my appeal to reason is at all similar to Plantinga or Van Til when they become circular. We can look at systems that claim non-contradiction is false all the time, or false some times, and see what happens. But as for why I think their appeal is problematic, consider the following:

Christian to Hindu: you don't believe in God because, although man had an initial sensus divinitatis, it was lost in the Fall and now you reject what is true because you are not properly functioning. You won't come to belief unless regenerated, and this based on the will of God and has nothing to do with your actions. I suggest you accept the teachings of God in the Bible.

Hindu to Christian: you don't believe in Krishna because, although initially enlightened, you accrued karma and now you reject what is true because you are not properly functioning. You won't come to belief unless enlightened, and this is based on the divine will, not on anything you do. I suggest you accept the teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Which story should I as an individual accept? As soon as we start to give an answer that involves appealing to the Bible or Bhagavad-Gita we are begging the question. If we say "the Hindu knows, he's just suppressing it," this can, of course, be said back to the Christian. So how do I as an individual know which of these to accept? I'm presented with at least these two options in life, what should I do? How can I be held eternally responsible if there is no way to settle the matter? Or, if we do appeal to something besides scripture to settle the matter, then I am recognizing that there is a general revelation that reveals God. If we say "the heavens declare the glory of God, not Krisha," can we show this in a non-question beginning way?

I take it that the unbeliever "suppresses" by replacing belief with some other false belief. I take it that if the Christian message is true, then Christians should be able to show this. Warfield, in his explanation of Calvin's sensus divinitatis, says that we know God in the very same moment that we know ourselves in that we are finite/dependent and God is what we are dependent on. But many other worldviews make this same claim about their view of the absolute. Can we do more than assert this?