When, by their own admission, William Lane Craig wins a debate with an atheist, atheists have well-worn excuses to discount the importance of the loss. Of course, some atheists deny the loss. But among those who concede the loss, familiar excuses include the claim that he’s a master debater, or that he’s better prepared.
Jeff Lowder recently came up with another excuse: Craig is a philosopher of religion. And that gives him a leg up on opponents like Rosenberg.
However, that excuse cuts against the grain of something else atheists are wont to say. Atheists contend that Christianity is false. And not just wrong about one or two things, but wrong on a whole raft of issues. And not just wrong in some subtle way, but obviously wrong. Blatantly wrong. After all, that’s why they’re atheists, right? Any reasonable person can see that Christianity is false.
But this means that by atheist criteria, Craig goes into every debate at a severe disadvantage. It’s harder to argue for a false position, when the evidence is stacked against you, than to argue for the truth. If atheism is true, then every time Craig wins, he had to come from behind. His opponent had a tremendous head start, which he must somehow overcome. The odds are heavily against him going into every race.