I found this debate embedded below between William Lane Craig and Peter Millican to be quite enjoyable for a few reasons. Primarily, I enjoyed the level of professionalism and civility that both men modeled. The debate was virtually devoid of the snarkiness that usually enters into such discourse. Both men carried themselves well and presented their sides without resorting to backhanded insults or rudeness. Secondly, I find the topic to amazingly important in the field of apologetics.
Too often, Christian apologists move quickly to establish the deity of Christ while forgetting that their opponents and/or audience may be struggling with the concept of deity in general. This debate centers around the question of deity, “Does God Exist?” When engaging with those who are struggling with the concept of God, it is often necessary for the Christian apologist to lay the groundwork and establish that the concept of God is acceptable prior to making the argument that Christianity best explains God. Following this approach, the apologist is free to use both evidential evidence and presuppositions to win his case. It is a topic I explore in a brief paper found here.
I think Craig does an apt job in this debate of laying this important groundwork. In his book, Reasonable Faith, Craig makes the argument that the task of the apologist isn’t necessarily to convince his opponent. Rather, in a day and age where secularists try to monopolize reason and academia, the apologist is better served to simply claim intellectual ground in the name of faith. If the apologist can accomplish this task, he has successfully given his audience “intellectual permission” to consider God. I think Craig accomplishes this task rather well in this debate.
I also think Craig wins this particular debate. He seemed much more concerned with actively proving his case while Millican seemed more concerned with rebutting Craig rather than proving his own argument that God doesn’t exist.
I invite you to check out their debate and consider their arguments for yourself. I must warn you, however, the debate is rather long. You might want to watch it in segments or pour yourself a cup of coffee before you settle in.
I hope you enjoy!