How I would debate William Lane Craig

 
If I were debating Christianity and God with William Lane Craig I would be careful not to let him make out it is just about what is true or false. I would make no points against him without explaining why the Christian beliefs in question are harmful. Each paragraph below exposes the benefits of atheism and the harmfulness of theism.

He will bring up the Kalam Argument. I would handle that by simply saying that if it points to a creator, a mind without a body, then this is something too different from us to relate to. He will then mention that this creator became a man Jesus. But that makes no difference for the doctrine is that God is not man at all but took a human nature – an additional nature. It does not alter the fact that God is more like an energy and not something you really can have a relationship with.
 
I would remind Craig that he says God is infinite power and infinite is not a number. It is a word for unlimited. So there is no power outside God. Thus such a God cannot create for creation suggests something can exist that is not God or made of God.

He will bring up the notion that nobody can really understand what morality means without seeing that if there is no God then there is no morality. God and morality are somehow the same. This is handled very simply. Imagine a baby was suffering. Hypothetically, you have a choice between helping the baby or helping the baby because God says it is right to do so. In fact it is obvious you should do the first. Helping the baby matters not bringing God into it. Thus in fact it is Christianity that fails to understand morality. That could be the reason why the faith along with Islam has an unusual power to get people to do evil. No other religion is as bad or dangerous.
 
We cannot just believe in God for the sake of believing in morality. Why? For we end up contradicting ourselves. We end up using God and that is not worship. And morality says we must respect evidence so believing in a God without any or caring about evidence would be immoral.

Craig will also say that evil is simply good in the wrong place and time. It is the wrong kind of good because God creates only good. Evil is a defect not a power or a thing. But that insults the fact that the worst suffering is the experience of evil as if it were a thing. We cannot water down this experience in order to make out evil fits the existence of God. We cannot accuse sufferers of being deluded or infer they are for having that experience.

What about natural evil, evil that no human being has caused such as plagues? The Christians cannot blame all evil on human free will.

The excuses for natural evil and God letting them happen boil down to three. One is that somehow it is impossible to make a non-dangerous universe. Two that natural evil is not morally relevant or if it is then the suffering it causes is not as bad as the suffering caused by human beings. Three evil spirits are using their free will to do the evil. All of these are desperate.

Do not say natural evil possibly refutes God. It does more than that. It refutes it. Do not forget that if it refuted it that those who want to believe in God would say it possibly refutes God. They soften disproofs of God to portray them as opinions not disproofs and they don't want to look like callous people who won't see suffering for what it really is - intolerable. They even condemn the notion that "if evil ought not to happen then God cannot let it happen". Make no mistake: to make excuses for natural evil is itself morally evil if we really do have free will to be moral or immoral. It is real people and real animals we are talking about remember.

Christians as good as admit they think that moral evil such as sin matters and natural evil is nothing in comparison.

Reply: How important is this idea to the Christian faith? Because God has to be portrayed as the innocent and Christians think that sin is the ultimate reason for suffering and death this idea is central. The Christian would be eager to say that any other reply is just an opinion but this one is something more. It is a lot more. But see what they are doing. They make out that natural evil is worse than direct moral evil. They see a random mechanical thing such as a plague that has nothing to do with any agent man or God as better than a sin. But the fact remains that judgementalism is bad for it looks for moral faults in people instead of the good and this is judgementalism. Judgementalism is itself a moral evil. So they use a moral evil to make a natural evil look better and reasonable. They water down the badness of death and horror and suffering in order and violate innocent until proven guilty to do it.
Often Adam and Eve are blamed for this turbulent and cruel universe and the bad people in it. To accuse Adam and Even for example of causing all this evil is vile. If you think those people existed and accused them you are no better than a person slandering your neighbour.
 
Christians say that if people die in earthquake areas they should not have went to live there in the first place so you cannot blame God. It is a terrible thing to blame people in order to exonerate God.
 
Christianity itself is a bad thing.
 
Thanks to Christianity's distortions forgiveness is confused with emotional healing after somebody has hurt you. The two are not the same. I do not forgive a lot of people but feel no pain anymore at what they did. And if you forgive somebody one day you can unforgive the next. Forgiveness is a process. Jesus bullied anybody who did not forgive by telling them God would not forgive their sins if they don't forgive others. No real forgiveness is possible when you are bullied like that and fearing the punishment of Hell. Forgiveness has to be totally freely done. Being told you will hurt yourself and end up bitter and twisted if you do not forgive is a form of bullying too. Lots of people who do not forgive and who hate the other person simply keep themselves occupied with other things so their hate does no harm. Also, nobody can care much what a stranger is suffering so human nature can easily forgive Hitler etc when we have not suffered at his hands and others have. Human nature tends to be happy that bad things happen to others and condones them easily. One clever way the Church pretends to be against injustice against children and others is by saying God forgives the sins. But that risks condoning. If God does not forgive or does not exist then the evils are being condoned. Forgiveness has to be real. Disguising condoning as forgiveness is the oldest trick in the book. And forgiveness is judgemental - you have to accuse and find the other person guilty before you can forgive. Repentance is another scam for many repent and change their minds ten minutes later. Repentance can be repented too.

And other problems are that forgiveness is not the same as reconciliation. Christianity preaches reconciliation and never puts it into practice. And do not forget it has a doctrine of justification. The idea is that God legally in his own law declares you innocent of sin so you have more than forgiveness going on here. It condones the evil you have done. Justification means "I am just the same as if I never sinned." Christianity copes with the evils of life and the problems of forgiveness with lies and placeboes.

Do not forget either that all religions recognise you can hate people against your will and they deny this is a sin as long as you keep trying to overcome it.  No religion has the right to claim that it opposes hate for that is a lie.  It has an exception.   Hate in that case would be seen as a natural evil or a necessary evil.  The lie itself gives it no right to be taken seriously when it bans violence and helps explain why religionists who wish to turn violent feel happy to do it in the name of their faith.
 
And Craig will read and learn and understand and still refuse to change his mind. The facade of faith must be kept up. In fact he masks his love of his reputation and prestige as faith.