~Maybe before making false statements about Craig's "early childhood" you should listen to his own words on the matter of his upbringing and his thinking.

watch?v=KkAAE2_vLsY

"meta-philosophical statement anyway..."

Speaking of "analytical word games" and "hogwash!" :D

"meta-philosophical statement anyway..."

none the less philosophical huh ;) lol !

"Being a Christian himself since his early childhood, he did never have any incentive to even think how a meaningful and purposeful life could be lived even without God, because he always believed in God and oriented his life along that belief."

" I was raised in a non-Christian home and became a Christian in high school. And when I first heard the gospel, it bothered me deeply to think of my friends and others as going to hell. And I said, "How could this be true?" ~Craig from transcript of debate with Ray Bradley.

lolol Craig's arguments are all circular and he even claims that his interpretation of relativity is better than Einstein's interpretation of relativity.
See
watch?v=3rSAo6IpiFU

Craig dedicates a whole chapter in his book to explain how in his opinion life is absurd without God. Being a Christian himself since his early childhood, he did never have any incentive to even think how a meaningful and purposeful life could be lived even without God, because he always believed in God and oriented his life along that belief.
There are many cultures on earth which are atheistic, though not areligious, like the japanese culture, which has the shinto religion and zen buddhism and yet people of these cultures manage to live meaningful and purposeful lifes, because it is simply a question of how you were raised and to claim that only Christianity could convey ethical values is ignorance.

meta-philosophical statement anyway..

So to answer your question:
My statement was made in the spirit of the early Wittgenstein and the school of logical positivism.

Now i don't agree with him. I don't think that we need to be so strict, BUT if someone like Craig comes along and tries himself to apply formal logic to his philosophy, then he has to play by the rules and that means that he has to be exact and define every single word that appears in his argument like "moral values" or "greatest" or "conceivable", because otherwise it makes no sense to apply formal logic. That's the point.

" The right method of philosophy would be this. To say nothing except what can be said, i.e. the propositions of natural science, i.e. something that has nothing to do with philosophy: and then always, when someone wished to say something metaphysical, to demonstrate to him that he had given no meaning to certain signs in his propositions. This method would be unsatisfying to the other -- he would not have the feeling that we were teaching him philosophy -- but it would be the only strictly correct method." —Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, 6.53