William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[YGninja]

Do you just misrepresent habitually or intentionally?
"things have a cause, and the only cause for all things is god," I think you'll find, that doesn't even constitute an argument. Atleast try and represent honestly.

"everything which begins to exist has a cause, God is the most likely explanation for the cause of the universe, due to reason X, Y, and Z."

Except that's not the Kalam argument that Craig favors. The normally accepted formulation of Kalam is: (1)

1. Everything which begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

That Craig goes on to assert what that cause "must" be does not alter the fact that the argument is little more than a series of assertions without support. (2)I've addressed Kalam numerous times on these boards, in any iteration that you theists desire to use; quite rightly, I find it ridiculous. The fact that I went on to reduce it to its basic absurdity is for humorous effect; when one strips away all of Craig's obfuscatory language, that is what you're left with. It's not a misrepresentation, it's mockery. Do get it right.

"I'm going to believe in god no matter what you say!"
Like, where did you even get this from? Stop.... lying. Just stop it.

Oh, now this is going to be fun: you dismiss what I'm saying here, but obviously you haven't heard Craig describe his "self authenticating witness of the holy spirit" before, which is telling. (3) You've decided to disagree with me without even knowing what I'm talking about. What was that you were saying earlier, about misrepresentations and dishonesty? Well, what would you call reflexive disagreement without even knowing what the topic under discussion is?

Since you don't seem to know very much about the person you're defending, I'll fill you in: William Lane Craig is a presuppositionalist. When he was addressing the question of whether direct, incontrovertible and unambiguous evidence against the truth of his religion (in the hypothetical he was addressing this came in the form of traveling back in time to see Jesus not rise from the dead) would convince him to give up christianity, Craig said precisely what I said earlier: if he had perfect evidence that his religion was not true, he would continue to believe it because he feels like it's true, and feels like that feeling is divine in origin. He calls it the "self authenticating witness of the holy spirit."

He writes here, on his own website and in his own words, that when presented with evidence that he cannot refute, the proper course of action he would take is to believe in god anyway. The fact that he has faith in god, he says, intrinsically beats out any evidence against his position, no matter what it is. (4)It's a position he's taken numerous times in his writings, of which the specific example I've linked is only one.

So next time, instead of just accusing me of lying, how about you get your own ducks in a row and, you know... actually know what you're talking about before you open your mouth?

1: I wasn't quoting the Kalam, i was summarising the direction of Craigs argument. You are the one who quoted WLC as saying "things have a cause, and the only cause for all things is god,", which you know is absolutely wrong as you are aware of the actual argument yourself. You have knowingly misrepresented your opponent.

2: Its a deductive argument; the conclusion follows from the premises.
Everything that begins to exist has a cause. You object?
The universe began to exist. You object?
The universe has a cause. You object?
That cause exists outside of time, is incredibly powerful, there is good reason to believe it is intelligent, etc.. You object??

3/4: I know exactly what you are talking about, and again you are intentionally misrepresenting him. He says on the very page you provided:

"What I claim is that for the person who attends to it the witness of the Holy Spirit overwhelms the putative defeaters brought against the truths to which He bears witness."

Which amounts to: "I trust what i experience and witness first hand, before general consensus."

putative
ˈpjuːtətɪv/Submit
adjective
generally considered or reputed to be.
"the putative father of her children"

This is a perfectly reasonable position to take. Actually experiencing something should be considered extremely strong evidence, and is a defeater to lesser evidence grounded in majority opinion.

He goes on to say: "Now this is importantly different from speculating about what I would do in such circumstances as you describe. I have no idea what, given the weakness of my flesh, I actually would do; but I know what I should do. "

"If it were proven that morality were merely a socio-evolutionary tool, then theism would be false and there would then be no witness of the Holy Spirit, since God would not exist. For theism entails that objective moral values and duties exist. So if they didn't, theism would obviously be false. "

"Again, if Jesus' bones were actually found, then the doctrine of his resurrection would be false and so Christianity would not be true and there would be no witness of the Holy Spirit. So if Jesus' bones were found, no one should be a Christian. Fortunately, there is a witness of the Holy Spirit, and so it follows logically that Jesus' bones will not be found."

Clearly there is a degree of flexibility, his witness to the holy spirit he feels is strong enough to override putative objections. But if it could be proven that something such as morality were socio evolutionary in origin, or Jesus bones were found, then he would have to give up the faith.