"(A) "the aim in holding a belief is to hold a true belief."
(B) They have the moral belief/conviction that a human is morally obligated to talk/think/act reasonably, rationally and logically. That one is acting immoral by being (willfully) irrational.
(C) They just happen to have a preference to be seen as rational. Maybe they think others will respect/like them more if they are seen as rational."

A) Asserting this as generally true seems dubious to me, but even assuming it were true, it tells us nothing about the validity of the belief held or it's rationality.
B) I have seen theists post on here and elsewhere who are happy to ignore logical fallacies in their claims, and even repeat them ad nausea, even after they have been pointed out many times.
C) I don't think this can be inferred as true from the apologetics I have encountered.
--------------------------------

Then we have this..

2: Belief Forming Mechanism-
"(A) Sensory experience (this does not just mean physical senses): "

There are non-physical senses? I scoured this section and though it produced a slight dizziness I saw not pretence of objective evidence for this idea.
---------------------------------------
3: Knowledge----------

There are various models of knowledge. The most common is the JTB model (Justified.True.Belief). The JTB models says for person (X) to have knowledge of (A), there must be these three components...

"American philosopher Edmund Gettier, challenged the long-held justified true belief (or JTB) account of knowledge. In his three-page 1963 paper, titled "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", Gettier showed, by means of two counterexamples, that there were cases where individuals had justified the true belief of a claim but still failed to know it. The term "Gettier problem", or "Gettier case", or even the adjective "Gettiered", is sometimes used to describe any case in epistemology that purports to repudiate the JTB account."
-----------------------------------------------
"The Sensus Divinitatis and the Witness Of The Holy Spirit are two possible ways a person could form a properly basic belief in/about God."

I found this defintion "Sensus divinitatis ("sense of divinity"), also referred to as sensus deitatis ("sense of deity") or semen religionis ("seed of religion"), is a term first used by French Protestant reformer John Calvin to describe a ***hypothetical*** human sense." again if it;s hypothetical it would have to be objectively evidenced in order for a belief based on it to be objectively rational.Calling it a sense is begging the question, one could refer to it as delusion divinitatis just as easily.
---------------------------------===
"(1) FIRSTLY: The Sensus Divinitatis...

...is a natural sense that God exists. "

Really? Do other animals have this sense? I didn't see the author trouble us with any objective evidence for this claim, and it gets worse.

"This could be a sense rooted in ones perceptional part of the mind, so that under certain circumstances --say when looking at a beautiful sun set or the face of ones new born child-- the Sensus Divinitatis will form the non-inferential belief, ‘God did that,’ or, ‘Divinity is behind that,’ or, ‘God is good and glorious’ etc..."

Wordy verbiage, nothing more. Hitchens's razor applied.
---------------------------------------------------------
"(2) SECONDLY: The Witness Of The Holy Spirit..."

I almost tire of saying this but without being able to demonstrate some objective evidence that this experience is not an unbiased delusion it is going in the bin using Hitchens's razor. However it must surely occur to any objective reader that such experiences are being and have been claimed to justify belief in every deity from Zeus to Ganesha. This hardly bodes well for the validity of the experience if it asserted sans evidence, but then we needn't be slogging through this wordfest if the author had any objective evidence.
--------------------------------------------
7: Philosopher(s) Dr Craig and Dr Plantinga’s Thoughts...

No thanks, I have heard quite enough from both of these to know they are more than happy to espouse logically fallacious claims and arguments in the most dishonest fashion.
---------------------------------------------------
"philosopher" "Dr William L. Craig states:

"I have elsewhere characterized the witness of the Holy Spirit as self-authenticating,"
" (1) that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for the one who has it and attends to it;"

Given his strident opening claim I have placed philosopher in inverted commas, and I should love to see some evidence as to how he asserts this experience as "unmistakably truthful"?

" (2) that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God;"

Well he would say that wouldn't he, but he is wrong, and again the idea that someone can self validate an experience as true without evidence speaks for itself, and for the claim this can form the rational basis for belief. Does WLC accept that all deities are validated through such claims? I think we can guess the answer to that.

>>I'll be honest here, but I am not prepared to devote any more time to this nonsense. Sorry but there is enough already to make me extremely dubious about the thread premise. I see nothing rational in asserting an experience as true, and claiming it requires no corroborating evidence when the experience involves nothing tangible or material. Human experiences or imaginings if you prefer can be extremely compelling and vivid, this does not remotely suggest they are as WLC claims self authenticating. He is simply not a very good philosopher, as his bias in favour of his own faith too often makes him strident and incautious in his claims.

@Cognostic
Your good post reminds me of a quote that I will probably butcher some:

"Tell your local government you talk to an invisible person that has magical powers they might lock you up in the local psych ward. Come with 9 or more friends and family saying the same thing, they will instead give you a tax break, and vigorously protect your right to congregate and recruit others to the collective unproven fantasy."