Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Esquilax]

I'm sorry, this is still textbook ad hominem. It doesn't matter if he's a conman. It doesn't matter what he stated about his way of reaching his ideas, and it doesn't matter if he's dishonest. What matters is the content of the ideas he's gone on record with, preferably in his very many formal debates.

It absolutely does matter how he reaches his ideas, when that method infects his every idea with inexcusable bias. Presuppositionalism turns every argument into mere pretense on the part of the arguer; we are no longer getting a full account of all the facts, and a conclusion based upon them, but instead a collection of either facts or misrepresentations that lead exclusively to a predrawn conclusion, regardless of accuracy.

Doesn't the fact that a given position makes its holder stop actually debating seem kinda relevant, in an argument?

The reason to reject an argument is, and only can be, because the argument is demonstrably false or poorly supported. And that's an easy enough claim to make about Craig's arguments-- why bother with the biographical metacommentary?

Gee, I don't know: if a guy started off his argument with the statement "everything I'm about to say is a lie," would that level of metacommentary be germane to the argument he's about to make? Why should a slightly slimier version of precisely that sentiment be any less relevant?