I certainly don't agree or advocate #1.

The argument from sincerity, as you put it, is actually the Mormon's argument.

I don't disagree with the assertion that an honest and open-minded seeker will eventually conclude that there is a God and that he was revealed in Christ.  I would place the quest in objective territory, not subjective.  I would imagine that praying that God will help reveal himself in a way that is convincing would be helpful, but knowing in your own mind what you would find convincing, and of course being reasonably confident that your desired criteria really is reasonable.

Well, then you disagree with William Lane Craig, who thinks one can come to know that God exists experientially, wholly apart from arguments. Is Craig advocating Mormonism, now?

What are you doing just sitting back trying to GOTCHA games?  Here is my first point:  I do not for a minute expect you to represent Craig's positions fairly.  We have to twist your arm around your neck and then back between your legs to get you to even produce documentation.  Here is my second point:  Once I see the documentation we can decide whether or not he is making a Mormon argument.  Here is my conclusion:  I will happily refrain from commenting on my views vis a vis Craig's vis a vis Mormonism pending some actual sourcing.

I note that in your example you say 'experientially' and 'apart from arguments' and neither of them preclude my position nor do either of them necessarily fit into the category of 'through prayer.'  As my thread about the limited value of argumentation ought to have illustrated, I think quite a bit can be gained apart from argumentation. Indeed, the most important and interesting aspects of Christian theism are gained apart from argumentation and by definition of the thing under discussion, I argue this is as it has to be.

Similarly, I would consider that 'experientially' would and could include evaluation of evidence, which of course is perceived 'experientially.'  If Craig means that one can derive a belief in God based on the evidence and not from argumentation, then I think I agree with him, but then neither is Craig being reflected in your argument, which clearly implied internal conviction.

Does Craig believe that belief in God can come via pure internal conviction by God revealing himself in that manner?  At this point, we do not know, as you have merely made some assertions.

Nor does it follow that Craig would agree with #1 even if he was referencing internal conviction, as your clause 'sure way' is one which I feel very confident would not escape the lips of competent Christian apologists, while in my experience with Mormon apologists, in the end their final argument actually is "Ask God to tell you if what we're saying is true.  His Spirit will fill you up and you'll just know."

Nor does it follow that I would think that it is impossible.  But I would not advocate it as a 'sure way' and I'll wager you'll have great difficulty in providing sourcing showing that Craig presents it that way.  But hey, right now you're the Craig scholar.  Maybe you'll prove me wrong and Craig really believes that.  What will we have achieved?  Merely uncovering a point of disagreement between he and I.  But that is yet to be seen, isn't it?

I do not for a minute expect you to represent Craig's positions fairly.

I expect an apology for your insinutation that I am intellectually dishonest.

As a quick aside, your first clue that Craig wasn't arguing that God's existence could be established via 'sincere prayer' was his statement which you quoted, "Now this isn't really an argument for God's existence."

So, whatever else you think you've shown, you've definitely shown that even if Craig allows 'prayers' as one of the ways in which you can 'draw near to God' it still "isn't really an argument for God's existence."

As a quick aside, your first clue that Craig wasn't arguing that God's existence could be established via 'sincere prayer' was his statement which you quoted, "Now this isn't really an argument for God's existence."

So, whatever else you think you've shown, you've definitely shown that even if Craig allows 'prayers' as one of the ways in which you can 'draw near to God' it still "isn't really an argument for God's existence."

So what? His claim that one can know God experientially can still be used in an argument against Christian theism.

Your premise:

"If Christian theism is true, then a sure way to know that God exists is to seek him sincerely*) through prayer."

Your quote of his:

"God can be immediately known and experienced. This isn't really an argument for God's existence"

Once again, show me one quote I cited that actually contradicts my first premise.

"Why isn't 'prayer' a good explanation for what Craig is talking about when he makes statements like, "God can be immediately known and experienced, " and "you can know that God exists wholly apart from arguments simply by immediately experiencing Him?""

Well, what would matter is what Craig actually thinks. 

You asserted that I "failed" to understand Craig correctly. How have I failed? It is patently obvious that Craig means prayer when he's talking about knowing God on an experiential level.

If he means prayer, then by all means provide a citation that makes it plain. 

What he said is plain enough. What else could he mean?

If that is what he means then it should be no trouble for you to show it.

Already did. Read his statement charitably: he obviously means prayer.

Christians can mean all sorts of things here.  Sure, it could mean internal conviction, but it doesn't have to. 

Provide an alternative.

 But explain to me why we care what Craig thinks here?  How is that relevant to your argument and my original response?

1. Craig is an authority on what Christian theism entails. Do you disagree with him?
2. His view is the basis of my argument.

"So what? His claim that one can know God experientially can still be used in an argument against Christian theism."

Only if Craig is the only Christian whose views matter, and only if Craig also means it is a SURE WAY to know that God exists.   If he only means that it is one way that God could work, well, I wouldn't disagree with him. 

He means it's one way to know that God exists, and it's also a sure way.

"Once again, show me one quote I cited that actually contradicts   my first premise."

Once again showing that logic is not coercive.  You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.  Not my problem.

"You asserted that I "failed" to understand Craig correctly. How have I failed? It is patently obvious that Craig means prayer when he's talking about knowing God on an experiential level."

No, it isn't patently obvious, for as I have already explained experience covers a lot of territory.  It is also experientially that I apprehend evidence. 

"What he said is plain enough. What else could he mean?"

You say that as if I hadn't already answered.  In this post I have now said for at least the third time how else it could be understood.  It is only 'plainly' prayer to you because you wish to use his comments to buttress your arguments.  If he meant through prayer, and it is important to you (as it clearly is), then by all means, provide documentation that this is what he means. 

"Already did. Read his statement charitably: he obviously means prayer."

Charitably to who?  You or him?  I can read your statements charitably, if for example you said 'experientially' and modified that to mean 'through prayer' but if you wish to make the same case for him you actually have to show that this is what he means.

"Provide an alternative."

I have.  Twice before and now a third time.

Similarly, I would consider that 'experientially' would and could include evaluation of evidence, which of course is perceived 'experientially.'  If Craig means that one can derive a belief in God based on the evidence and not from argumentation, then I think I agree with him,

And what does it mean that God draws near to you?  Does Craig mean that God reveals himself as an internal conviction?  Would Craig argue that God's drawing near could not be an experience of an external 'divine' event?  These are the questions that matter.

It is also experientially that I apprehend evidence. 

I would say that the first step towards charitable reading is to actually read in the first place.

"1. Craig is an authority on what Christian theism entails. Do you disagree with him?"

If Craig means what you think he means, and in particular that it is a SURE WAY, yes, I would disagree with him.

Do you see the very big letters?  That is an important part of your argument.  I have already indicated to you that even if Craig means prayer, we need also see him saying that it is a SURE WAY.      Given the fact that you yourself have quoted him as saying that his argument isn't actually an argument for God's existence, I think you've got an uphill battle.

"2. His view is the basis of my argument."

Well, his view as you understand it anyway.

"He means it's one way to know that God exists, and it's also a sure way."

He means, perhaps that it is one way, but you have to substantiate that it is a SURE WAY.

That said, I have no interest in going through Craig's writings with a fine tooth comb in yet another thread to see in what various ways you have confused his arguments and occasionally get something right.  I'll address your argument, that's fine, but I care very little even if Craig's views are (legitimately, even) the basis for your argument.  I can address the argument on my own terms, and you're a smart enough feller that you can take my arguments and apply them back to Craig if you like.  This whole GOTCHA game where you're perpetually pitting Craig (always as interpreted with authority by you, and only you) against Sntjohnny or Cimics is ridiculous and a waste of my valuable time.

I asked you when you last read the Bible and I still would like to know.  The Bible is not silent about such matters and if you were familiar with it you might see other ways that 'experientially' might apply.

For example, in the Trial before King Agrippa, Paul incites him to say, "Do you think that in such a short time you can persuade me to be a Christian?"

Paul does not say "Pray and God will make it known to you."  No.  Leading up to this he has accounted for his own journey to faith, including some comments by Jesus which we may interpret as being 'experiential' such as "I am sending you (Paul) to open their eyes.... so that they may receive forgiveness of sins..." and when push comes to shove Paul does not direct them to prayer, but rather tells Agrippa, "I am convinced that none of this has escaped [your] notice, because it was not done in a corner."

In other words, Paul means to 'open eyes' by directing them to verify the details of his story themselves.  You don't think having eyes opened is 'experiential'?

Furthermore, Paul moves on to take another tact with Agrippa rather than the Roman Felix, and asks Agrippa if he believes the prophets.  In other words, Paul was preparing to show from the evidence of the prophets, if Agrippa accepted them as an authority, that Jesus was who he says he was. 

This is all experiential in its broadest sense, and may even be construed as experiential in the internal sense which you have been implying as indicated by the figurative language "to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins..."

With knowledge of the Bible in hand, it is not difficult in the slightest to conceive of different ways in which 'experiential' might apply.  It also gives us the opportunity to put certain claims to the test.  Ie, if it is a SURE WAY to know that God exists, why did Paul point to the evidence of history in Agrippa's direct range for verification and to the Prophets?  Why not say "Agrippa, just pray and God will make it known!"

If you do not have a Bible, I would be pleased to send you one.

Well, I'm done here.

Toodles.

I answered your OP in complete good faith.   You responded by attempting to contrast my response with assertions about Craig rather than addressing the substance of my own comments.  Total bait and switch.

I am completely uninterested in discussions that only serve to flesh out the merit, or lack thereof, of your own responses to arguments of other Christians, at least as you perceive those arguments.  It is utterly infantile to waste time arguing whether or not Craig means what you say he means.  I only care insofar as it seems important that you at least represent him correctly and only then insofar as it is relevant to the topic.  Nothing in your OP indicated that we were going to rehash, yet again, something to do with Craig.  If I had thought it was, I would never have bothered to reply at all.

As for your accusation of a 'mistake' it is up to you to show that prayer=experiential in Craig's mind.  It is not enough to say "It's Obvious" and "I found Christians who agree."  If that's what Craig meant, the simplest approach would be to have provided him saying that's what he meant.  I note that to this point you have declined to do so and that probably says all that needs to be said.

Finis.

As expected, sntjohnny is too proud to own up to any mistake.