Why Something Rather Than Nothing?

[Heywood]

Even God has to believe somethings which are not proven to be true. If God is all powerful God can create a lessor being and trick that lessor being into thinking it is God. God knowing that He can do this has to wonder if He is not some lessor being being tricked by a covert superior being. God can't really know with absolute certainty....if He is God. It is a necessary truth that a world view must contain at least one assertion.

You seem to have a decent case that omniscience is impossible there, I give you that. But God doesn't HAVE to assert that he's God, he can accept it as tentatively true for practical purposes while still recognizing that he can't really know.

Accepting as tentatively true while recognizing it might be otherwise....is essentially an assertion in my opinion.

---

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?

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?

You presuppose every argument Craig makes is bad. You're guilty of "presuppositionalism".