William Lane Craig is a master of crowing over the essentially irrelevant robust nature of certain methodologies while simultaneously misapplying such methods to draw his desired and erroneous conclusions.
In academic circles, anyone who spends a disproportionate amount of their time exhausting the praises of the reliability of logical methods (as Craig does), reeks of being a bullshit merchant as its well known the whole methodology is subject to GIGO... Garbage in, Garbage out.
Craig has 'five pillars' by which he 'proves' Christianity. Here, in Why Do People Laugh at Creationists Part 37, William Lane Craig, I address merely the first of these 'pillars'. He claims that everything that begins to exist has a cause. Well if we didn't have a few hundred years of scientific discovery under our belt showing the universe does not mold itself around human intuitions, he might have a point: however that's just not the case! The smaller and higher in energy you get, the less intuition serves you satisfactorily. And whats the problem Craig wants to apply his 'intuition' and 'inductive reasoning' to? Oh yeah, the beginning of the universe, where all of the energy/ matter of the universe was in pretty much the smallest volume we can conceive. He seems to expect that even though we have no way of currently defining such a state (it's an unknown, a gap in knowledge), that his intuitive reasoning will serve him well. You don't need to know much about science to realize that's almost a pointless exercise. Apply intuition to quantum mechanics, and you will fail. Similarly with relativity.
These are of course the scientific objections to Craigs arguments. Craig is of course merely a layman when it comes to science. A point I only bring up as Craig persistently brings up such appeals to authority when suggesting his critics are not serious because they do not possess a degree in Philosophy.