My comments were based on the article Luke posted. Now, in the past – I would agree that Craig does base his arguments on what he deems to be "good evidence" for the existence of the Christian God. However, based on the comments that Craig makes in the article, I don't see how you could draw the conclusion that this "Inner Witness" argument is secondary to all that.

If we are to take Craig in context, I don't see that he merely poses personal experience as a confirmation of his intellectual arguments – a sort-of dollop of Holy spirit whipped cream on the historical Jesus pie. (um, so to speak – sorry, I just had some leftover pumpkin pie after lunch today)

Anyway, based on my reading, this seems to be the exact opposite of what he truly means to say. In fact, he explicitly states that the only REAL truth is the one that has been personally revealed to him, and that any "arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit".

Furthermore, Craig admits that even if he were personally to witness evidence to contradict the (as you put it), "historical, biblical God" (i.e. witnessing Jesus NOT rise from the dead) – that his personal, experience would supercede that knowledge due to the belief that his personal experience with the Holy Spirit is "self-authenticating". He specifically states that "[The inner witness of the Spirit] trumps all other evidence."

Going back to my (delicious) pie analogy, this "Inner Witness" argument would seem to be the crust of Bill Craig's God-pie recipe – the basis on which all other knowledge, beliefs, and suppositions are laid. Contrary to your assertion, this does not seem to be a secondary argument at all for Craig – in fact, I think it's now fairly obvious that he buoys the totality of his Christian beliefs on his personal experience of the Holy Spirit – all other evidence simply serves to justify, confirm and mold it.

What my post on your blog was alluding to is that this type of "I know because I KNOW" argument is not evidence. It is simply a claim to self knowledge, and is one that ANYONE can make about ANY BELIEF – including atheists. Not only is it not evidence, it's not really even an argument. It's subjectivity is fallacious and at the very least credulous.

But I'm curious, now… As one who seemingly subscribes to this "Inner Witness" claim of Craig's, what would you say to someone (like myself, for instance), who used to be a believer in God and Jesus Christ, and experienced their own very believable and real personal revelation of God, Jesus and/or the Holy Spirit – yet eventually lost every one of those "self-authenticating" beliefs altogether?

I think that is precisely what Craig is NOT saying. He is not saying it is true because I've experienced it.

I think he is saying:
1. It is first reasonable to think that the historical, biblical God is real, just, and consistent with science, history, and logic, as He is revealed in the scriptures.

2. In addition, whether or not our philosophies seem to prove of disprove God, which in the end is impossible, I have *experienced* God as real, and that is both influential to me and confirming.

Of course, the atheist could argue that their experience teaches them the opposite, but again, I think Craig is using this as a secondary, but not unimportant argument.

I became a christian because of this. I stay a christian because of this.

I know it is of the heart. But I use my mind as well :)

Christianity, if practiced, is a very healthy happy way of life. :) And who doesn't want to be healthy and happy :)

And every way of life is similar. You get your beliefs from somewhere, and you follow them because you "believe" they will make you healthy and happy. And that includes atheism. :)