Fan of William Lane Craig has lots of time for not-answering. But none for answering.

Under that video, the following conversation caught my attention. 
Yet again, we see fan-followers of religious-fundamentalist apologists ... demonstrating how stupid and dishonest they are.

A skeptic named @fatfrankie asked a Christian:

"What’s the strongest argument for Christianity being true that you found? I’ve never seen a rational argument."

-------------
In reply, that Christian offered this rambling and nonsensical non-answer: 

@josephtattum63655 hours ago
"@fatfrankie I can give you the short version but it basically comes down to whether or not you think God exists and then if God has revealed himself. There are many sound philosophical arguments why God exists, which I don’t have tune to get into now, and the historicity of Jesus is widely accepted as accurate historically and since he resurrected he vindicated his claim to be God thereby revealing God’s nature. That is the short version." ​

----

My reply:
@josephtattum6365

Re:
1. "whether or not you think God exists"
--
If you mean "any god" or "a god", then it's better to say that instead.

When you capitalize it as "God" and fail to acknowledge it as a count noun,
especially in the context of arguing in favor of (any literal version of) Christianity,
then it's likely to be understood as the exclusive title/name of your specific "God".


2. "and then if (someone thinks) *God* has revealed *himself*.
--
a.) See commentary offered above under part 1.

Also, adding "himself" makes this problem worse, because it's a male-specific anthropomorphization typical of the Abrahamic religions.
It also infers monotheism; which is not reasonable in the context of building a bridge of ideas **to** a monotheistic religion, since there really aren't any good arguments for monotheism until someone decides that a specific monotheistic religion has been substantiated.
,
3.
"There are many sound philosophical arguments why God exists,"
--
Such as?
--
4.
"which I don’t have tune to get into now",
--
Well, that's unfortunate; since that's what fatfrankie asked you to provide.
----------
5. "" and the historicity of Jesus is widely accepted as accurate historically"
--
This is equally as impressive as when a Mormon argues that Joseph Smith really existed, or when a North Korean Kim-cultist argues that Kim Jong-il really existed.
--------
6.
"and since he resurrected"
--
Claims are not a form of evidence.
--------
7.
"he vindicated his claim to be God."
--
Claims are not a form of evidence.
Nor were any of the writers or characters Trinitarians.
Nor does it logically follow that coming back to life means someone must be a god.
--------
8.
"thereby revealing God’s nature."
--
According to Romans 1:20, that would have been redundant and unnecessary.
It would be like parents hosting a "gender reveal party" for a middle-aged child.
- Unless you only mean that a "Trinity-nature" was unknown until then. But in this case, my objection is:
Anything that cannot be grasped by us lowly humans ... cannot be honestly said to have been "revealed" to us.