'Throwing' a book at me is intellectual cowardice.
You should at least give a summary and present your best bet from the book.
Since you are so incompetent and adamant, I downloaded the book.
What is the book all about?
In the Introduction, Craig wrote;
In this volume, we bring together some of the foremost practitioners of natural theology writing today and give them the opportunity to develop their arguments at length and to interact with the arguments’ critics.
The resulting volume is a compendium of theistic arguments on the cutting edge of philosophical discussion.
You did not bother to inform but the above is what the reviewer stated, i.e. the whole book is ALL about the theistic arguments for God's existence.
Since the whole book is ALL about the argument for God's existence I have countered re Kant, it is impossible to prove the existence of God via logical argument.
The Contents of the Book is all about Arguments; logical argument, based directly on logical argument, moral, evil and experience;
- 1The project of natural theology 1
2 The Leibnizian cosmological argument 24
Alexander R. Pruss
3 The kalam cosmological argument 101
William Lane Craig and James D. Sinclair
4 The teleological argument: an exploration of the fine-tuning of
the universe 202
5 The argument from consciousness 282
J. P. Moreland
6 The argument from reason 344
7 The moral argument 391
Mark D. Linville
8 The argument from evil 449
9 The argument from religious experience 498
10 The ontological argument 553
Robert E. Maydole
11 The argument from miracles: a cumulative case for the resurrection
of Jesus of Nazareth 593
Timothy McGrew and Lydia McGrew
The majority of the above argument are based on logical/reasoning arguments. I have argued they are impossible to prove God's existence as real empirically and philosophically.
The others bolded
are based on the basis of evil, experience, miracles, fine-tuning, are empirically based. I have countered it is impossible for the ultimate God to be empirical [conditional] since God must be unconditional.
The other is based on morality which is logical and necessary for the theistic moral framework. However it does not prove God exists as real empirically and philosophically.
Note there are tons of books countering the above arguments.
It is not difficult for me to 'throw' these books at you.
Note my argument, the question of God is moot, i.e. a non-starter.
The question of God is more realistic from the psychological perspective.
God is an Impossibility