Funny how William Lane Craig seems to just blithely assume that atheists mindlessly repeat the slogan that there's no good evidence for God's existence. I can't help but wonder if he's ever actually engaged an atheist in a discussion on the subject, or if he's just playing to his audience (my guess is the second).
But playing the game by his rules doesn't accomplish anything, so instead, I think I'll rebut his so-called reasons.
1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
Using 'God' as an explanation for anything is not really viable. It's synonymous with "I don't really know for sure, but God makes the most sense to me". Not just a god, but a specific god, the Christian god. That's really just a bad argument and should not be used. Worse, his explanation of a "transcendent reality/entity" which created the universe begs the question of "what created that?" At that point, it's just turtles all the way down.
2. God provides the best explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe.
See above about using 'God' as an explanation for anything. Furthermore, claiming that the universe is fine-tuned is nonsense - well, unless he's claiming it was fine-tuned for the formation of black holes. It's very simple to show that the universe is anything but fine-tuned for intelligent life. Earth isn't even fine-tuned for our own variety of intelligent life (we can't live on the 70% of our planet that's covered with water, just for starters), and the entire rest of the solar system is absolutely inhospitable to human life. Never mind the roughly four cubic light-years of nothing but gas and dust that surrounds the solar system before we get to our nearest stellar neighbor, Alpha Centauri. So, no, the universe is definitely not fine-tuned for intelligent life.
3. God provides the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.
See above about using 'God' as an explanation for anything. This also assumes that there is any such thing as objective morality, which is extremely dubious, not to mention difficult to prove. Not to mention, if there were some kind of objective morality, why do we not see it in other life-forms? You don't have to be intelligent to have morals, any more than you have to be intelligent in order to hunt for food or to defend yourself against predators. The best proof for objective morality would be its existence in forms of life which could not have developed complicated morality - yet this is exactly what we don't see.
God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection
This presumes that the historical stuff regarding Jesus are actual facts, and that is highly dubious. Indeed, contemporary Roman and Jewish accounts seldom include any records of these supposed miracles; the ones that do are questionable at best and are likely edited or outright fakes.
5. God can be personally known and experienced.
This begs the question of whether there's an actual being to be known and experienced. I can create fictional characters in my mind who I can personally know and experience, but that does not prove they exist outside of my mind. Furthermore, the fact that a lot of people presumably know and experience God doesn't mean anything either, because this could be true of any major fictional character (such as Darth Vader). I have very little doubt that many children who saw Star Wars could legitimately claim that they knew and had experienced Darth Vader using their imagination, but that doesn't prove Darth Vader is a real entity.