WLC usually doesn't provide links because you cannot link something in a scholarly article.
That is cunning. So cunning you could stick a tail on it and call it a weasel. (This is another
cultural reference and by no means an implication that you, good sir, are a weasel.)
If Craig were truly dedicated to the divine, he would be more than willing to make his work freely available at his website, making the provision of links incredibly easy. Many (proper) academics do this, rather than hiding their work behind the academic equivalent of paywalls.
I also never interpreted you in the (funny but) uncharitable way you suggest.
Congratulations, you made it past the filter.
Rather, I was saying that you just plain don't seem to be a skeptical person. The fact that you have to tell people that you are a skeptic or else they would not know is also telling.
Hm. I'm not a sceptic, huh? I'm rather sceptical of your claim. Can you provide evidence?
You seem to be labouring under a misapprehension that I occasionally tell people that I am a sceptic in order to shore up my position as a sceptic. This simply isn't true. I occasionally
remind people that I am a sceptic because they appear to have forgotten, in much the same way as I might remind someone offering me meat that I am a vegan and someone offering me a vodka martini that I am not James Bond. (I'm not a vegan. That was purely hypothetical. And I'd accept the vodka martini. At the least the first and second one. Perhaps the third. After that who knows, I'd probably be in the hot-tub singing jingles for washing powder. What the heck, I can have another one.)
The point being that your accusation that I am not a sceptic seems calibrated to irritate me, and it's not working. I'm just laughing at you. Not to irritate you, mind you, but merely because you are so amusing. It's like watching a toddler get hit by a swing on one of those home videos. I know I should feel differently, but I can't help myself (and clearly the toddler isn't damaged for life, I hope). Perhaps you could stop trying this tactic, so that we can irenically discuss the content of the issues?
(For Bunyip: I don't necessarily endorse all (any?) of WLC's arguments, so I don't feel hugely compelled to defend them. Moreover, why would I address objections that don't touch his scholarly work? Should I just pretend that his arguments are as simple as he makes them seem? Again, suppose that someone criticized Stephen Hawking's work and based their criticism on A Brief History of Time. Should we regard the critic as a serious person who needs to be addressed? Clearly not.)
Um, what? You don't endorse WLC, but you are encouraging me to read his work (and I assume, therefore, that you haven't read it either? Or are you saying that despite (or because) more in depth understanding of Craig's positions, you disagree with them?
You are quite a mysterious person, PCH.
On the issues above, I did say that my interest is in Craig's debates and those who are his devotees, who tend to raise various versions of Craig's arguments (be they from Reasonable Faith, the book or the site, his debates and, in some isolated cases, whatever they have misunderstood from discussions with other devotees). Would it be acceptable for Craig, in his debates, to raise his arguments and then deflect every objection with "Have you read my book? No? Then shut up." It's ridiculous there and it's ridiculous here, even if the objection is being provided by a proxy (you) to another proxy (me).