William Lane Craig is a brilliant man. He has a great gig going with his full Research Professorship at Talbot School of Theology. He earns royalties on some 30 books. He also brings in money from his ReasonableFaith.org operations. He believes in and argues for the theory of A-time that our recent arrival @Squatch347 and I have been kicking back and forth here.
Craig debated New Testament Scholar Professor Bart D. Ehrman and in my opinion, got his clock cleaned. Read the transcript of the debate and this powerful rebuttal of Craig’s arguments, and it is clear Craig is lost and just churning out erudite-sounding gibberish in hopes of confusing his opponent, or at least bamboozling the less educated in his audience, most of whom have a strong confirmation bias in Dr. Craig’s favor. Confusing audiences with big words is something William Lane Craig excels at. He also scores highly in quote mining books scientists in physics, cosmology, deep time and evolutionary biology; cherry picking a single sentence out of context to make it appear the clear weight of science is on his side when the truth is exactly the opposite. He comes to every debate well prepared to use these disingenuous tools.
It is clear he knows he is being intellectually dishonest, because he has lied about the Ehrman debate and when informed by authors such as Dr. Henry Gee that he was misusing their words from their books, and reversing their true meaning, he goes right on committing the error again and again. My guess is that the man is not a believer in any god but the Great God of Cash. That god, he serves reasonably well.
As to debates he lost, if you listen with discerning ears and strip out all the obfuscation, the fallacious arguments, and his attempt to debate by throwing bucket-loads of assertions up against the wall and seeing which stick (it takes 15 seconds to make an assertion and 15 minutes to fully refute it. So make 60 assertions in your 15 minutes at the microphone, and your opponent can refute only one of them in his 15 minutes) I think he was destroyed by Bart Ehrman and taken to the woodshed by Stephen Law, Shelley Kagan and Sam Harris. Here is Lewis Wolpert Wolpert exposing the depth of Craig’s reliance on special pleading fallacies.
Some of the most interesting debates are those between two theists, each who believes in a different deity. Consider the witticism presented in atheism in three easy steps and you get an idea of what you will hear.