Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Esquilax]

The only things relevant to the argument you have rejected are the elements of the argument you have rejected. How about you list all the premises of Craig's argument and the conclusion he draws from them and we'll see if his presuppositional position is one of the premises.

And when one of the elements of every argument Craig has made- and I would remind you that he has committed to this- is "I'm right, and everything that might indicate I'm wrong doesn't exist to me," then there is a fundamental, glaring flaw in every argument Craig will ever make. And to be clear, this isn't me saying this, this isn't like some vendetta I have, this is a thing Craig proudly and openly states in his books.

If the answer is always going to be "therefore god," regardless of what actual evidence is there to be presented, if evidence will actually be ignored if it doesn't fit in with the "therefore god" conclusion, what more need be said? We already know what the conclusion is going to be, and we know that this conclusion is going to be blindly thundered toward no matter what's in its way. What honest discussion of any topic can be had with a presuppostionalist?

Can you do that? Can we evaluate Craig's argument instead of Craig the man?

I am evaluating his argument. It's not my fault that his argument comes with such a gaping hole under its epistemological base. And you're still strawmanning me; as I've said numerous times, this isn't about the person, but one of the fundamental positions that he has embraced.