He claims that the presuppositional “argument” is not objectionable. Of course, it is. There are several objections. One is that he takes as axiomatic a claim that is in dispute — that his god exists. Another is that he dishonestly calls on people to “account” for something not in dispute — the ability to reason. Yet another is his endless squawking of “how are you certain?” like a broken record.
You can only try to persuade someone that something is ture by using axioms with which he already agrees. It does not bother me that he calls his axioms “presuppositions.” What bothers me is that he expects outsiders to accept axioms that either they believe are false or are undecided on. This will only generate a judgement that the “argument” is dishonest.