Can you debate William Lane Craig? Well my immediate response is whats the point? It’s quite easy to show that William Lane Craig essentially delivers exactly the same ‘debate’ almost by rote.
Popular debates favor style over substance, which is why the ‘debate’ is an irrelevance in the acquisition of knowledge. In areas of contention, you propose experiments capable of distinguishing the various proposed models. You then go and perform said experiments and the knowledge of mankind moves forwards. Notably Craig will NEVER makes any testable predictions, which is why his arguments never change and he never moves forward.
In this sense you might as well ‘debate’ a recording of William Lane Craig as William Lane Craig himself, as intellectually the physical presence of the man adds nothing to the forum. Incidentally, I can also tell you from personal experience that this is why watching William Lane Craig debates gets so terribly monotonous. It really is ‘pull the draw string’ and watch the man espouse the rigorous gold standards of the virtues of logic immediately prior to remorselessly and unproductively sodomizing them with a large, rusty and particularly unpleasant looking metal pipe.
Now none of that would actually be a problem if Craig was presenting some devastating argument that no one could address, but that’s simply not the case. Craig merely rattles off his ‘5 pillars’, conveniently forgetting to tell people that none of these arguments actually convinced him that god exists, they just form a conformational bias on his ‘personal interaction’ with god. In that sense the only argument that actually needs to be addressed is the one that convinced Craig, and boy how simple it is to address!
People all around the world have these personal interactions with different ‘Gods’.
Now Craig will be the first to stand up and say ‘but that doesn’t logically prove my God doesn’t exist’. Well yeah sure, but it does put Craigs personal relationship with ‘God’ into the exact same deeply unconvincing category that Craig puts everybody elses ‘God’s into. Bizarrely it is this exact deeply unconvincing argument that is the very foundation of Craigs belief in ‘God’, and it is upon these foundation of sand he builds his pillars of conformational bias.