Again the same old bullshit: Just because something isn't forever, it's worthless. Only eternal things have any ultimate meaning. 
Wait. Who gives a damn about an ultimate meaning? Or better said, what idiot is so conceited, that he wants his life to have an eternal, ultimate meaning? 

We reasonable people will be glad for living meaningful lives as long as we are alive. Some among us would like to leave some positive impact on subsequent decades, centuries or millenia of civilization, but that's all. 

What? ...a meaningless, unending life? Why does it remind me of Christian heaven so much?

If life ends at grave, it makes no difference whether you lived as Stalin or Mother Theresa. Riiight. And when some mass murderer on deathbed accepts JC into his heart, then the result is pretty damn similar. You might just live as you please, just keep a priest nearby. 

What, objective standards of right and wrong? Promoted by the god who loves burnt offerings and burnt cities? Riiight. 

Without god, our life is no different than animal life? And who is going to judge that, if there is no god? And what about eternal burning in hell or eternal reward in heaven for not using our brain makes our life so much more purposeful?

Really, I have no idea why the apologetist Stefan Gustavsson (which I had met and debated IRL) recommended me WLC so much. Maybe I'll send him a link to this post on Facebook.

He's such a tool, WLC 's entire argumnent:

Reality is scawwwy!

Magic stories make me feel betta.

And so I believe them, and you can too.

That is all.

I was thinking the same thing.  But I was willing to bear with him because I thought he was trying to make an intelligent point until he said "This is really going to happen...  Unless God intervenes first..."  and I nearly rolled off the sofa.  K so trillions of years from now, when there's no reason to expect that Life has managed to continue in its existence up to that point, God will come and...  do what?  Stop time from passing?

I think it's incredibly arrogant to believe that "I exist, therefore my life has to have ultimate meaning", nevermind going around telling other people that his god embodies said "ultimate meaning".  Don't get me wrong, I can totally appreciate the extreme rarity it is to be self-aware in a universe full of inanimate... ness...  but the idea that at some point there will be no more of it ever does not frighten me.  

And I could be wrong but I believe his assertion that eternal life without god would have no meaning is no better than the argument that life in general has no meaning without god.

This guy is a tool-bag, his whole argument can be shredded into a thousand pieces and he STILL leaves his debate like he is a victorious gladiator, this is why debating apologists is useless, no matter what you say or how badly you smoke them, they ALWAYS think they won.

It's all about stategy and intel (the military definition of the word) in a televised or public debate. Far too many atheists and scientists go into them unarmed and unprepared for the level of insanity that they will confront. They expect a debate with reasonable people, because most of the people they know and correspond with are reasonable. They don't look at the oppositions history to see that their position is unreasonable, and don't predict that in order to believe in such nonsense for a significant period of time, and against evidence to the contrary, they must in fact be self delusional.

William Lane Craig has a significant background of information to utilize when formulating his arguments.  To many of the athiests he happens to debate, he appears stifling and applies the "shotgun" method liberally.  Not to mention he employs underhanded and academically dishonest means to justify the existence of God.  In a debate with Massimo Pigliucci (on the existence of the Christian God), Massimo discarded (as irrelevant) Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument, Argument from Contingency, and the Argument for Absolute Morals to confront Craig on the grounds of the historocity of Jesus and the Resurrection.  By Massimo discarding those arguments, Craig's tactics switched to focusing on his "concession" of those arguments to prove he could not be an atheist.  Finally he attempted to nullify Massimo's arguments with his typical argument for the Ressurection.

Tactically as a debater, he made his play against Massimo Pigliucci bypassing the strength of his position.  It may have worked for many who watched the debate.  But on an intellectually honest level, Massimo won easily, and in his blog I agree he "wiped the floor with Craig's ass."  The debate is on youtube.  Massimo may not have been the more skilled debater, but what sets Craig apart from many of the kooks in Christian apologetics is his ability to obscure his opponent's arguments and exploit apparent contradictions.  If that component of his showmanship is stripped away, what remains is a philosopher and theologian presuming authority in cosmology, mathematics and history.  Especially in the case of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, are we safe to assume Craig has surpassed all of the world's foremost cosmologists to identify (with near certainty) the prime motivator of existence?

I will definitely watch the debate and I joined as of today.  Many philosophers and naturalists who have debated Craig on a single topic demolished him.  Craig no doubt recieves respect as a debater in both theist and athiest communities, but I think when he cannot throw ten points of contention from varying disciplines at an opponent he is at his weakest.  Craig's paradox:  Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence, but refusing to counter my arguments in your opening statement is automatic concession.   How many times in how many debates has his first rebuttal been:  "We have heard (x amount of) points of contention tonight, and no good argument against them."