He has no evidence for his claims for the anthology, none for his God and none for morality.
Why should any rational person find creditable the talking snake and the talking donkey and all those miracles?
He cannot defend the putative genocide as morality condemns such. He cannot with that other fool C.S.Lewis claim why, to find God immoral then one has to have an objective morality, one independent of people's subjectivity. No. In part, morality depends on that subjectivity- the overruling of our tastes and whims with our considered judgment, which depends on our evolved moral sense- empathy- and reason and facts-- wide-reflective subjectivism underpinning the humanist,objective ethic. As with science, it is tentative- we can refine it- and debatable, His is the egregious simple subjectivism of malignant, malicious misanthropes, who largely made up morality due to their egregious tastes and whims; the simple subjectivism of those who have a good moral sense can be just fine.
WLC prefers that egregious morality to that of Lord Russell or Michael Ruse or the wide-reflective one of Hobbes and Hume.^
He'd let the holy spirit- his own inner thought- to override his reason should he find no evidence for the Resurrection and all. He prefers being a dupe to ancient immoral- thinking men than to test claims. That inner thought is his own fear of reality at work by using , his own certitude but claiming that that spirit speaks to him. Telepathic God would violate physics!Dogmatism cannot instantiate God. We have no sensus divinitatus- divine sense- the holy spirit at work, despite that other fool Alvin Plantinga!
What rational person would accept those biblical tall tales? No evidence exists for them, just men spouting off! Why, history finds much of that egregious anthology wrong! Yet, he wants others to base their lives on that anthology from Hell!
He spouts logical fallacies for his Kalam argument! He thinks that his rhetoric can instantiate God!