GetMeThere, I'm not a fan of Craig though I respect his phenomenal abilities in a debate as well as the skills of a few other Christians. Craig also has the ability to use words on paper effectively -- something that a Ravi Zacharias seems to lack.
That said, I'm not feeling charitable towards Craig's arguments that seem to boil down to philosophical shell games and equivocations where generic deities are swapped in for the Christian deity Yahweh, and the conclusions are assumed presupposationally. That said, my mood may improve. Till then, I've added this snarky category;
Christians who don't get it, but have sophisticated arguments
PLEASE don't assume I'm a fan of WLC. I positively LOATHE him--probably more than I would....<pick your despot>
In fact I've just come here from watching the video below on youtube. Here, Craig makes a NASTY contortion of the remark that people believe in god because it "feels good" into an accusation of the genetic fallacy: the conclusion that god doesn't exist because people believe because it feels good. What a rotten BASTARD. When people note that others DO appear to believe in god because "it feels good" and THEN go about claiming god is real (of course), and that then their reasons for believing are SUSPECT....that's not AT ALL the genetic fallacy.
Craig ALMOST CONSTANTLY pulls that kind of crap--and PULLS IT OFF, TOO, against a lot of his debaters. I find that non-believers typically don't EXPECT people (especially "scholars") to purely pull s**t at every turn--and so they're not prepared for it, and are temporarily sidelined by it. WLC KNOWS this, and uses it!
Nevertheless, it WOULD be useful to have a list of video sources that are part of the standard weaponry of apologists. Craig certainly fits there. Perhaps the category heading should be "Notorious Apologists"
Edit: My feelings toward WLC are well expressed by this idea--I wouldn't be surprised if one stuck a pin in him, that a geyser of puss would spurt out.