Dr. Bill Craig's Debates: Why do Atheists lose/run away from debating him?

[Bucky Ball]

First of all Xavier .... this is total and utter bullshit >>> ""As moderator of a debate between Craig and an atheist selected by the national spokesman for American Atheists, Inc., I [Lee Strobel] marveled as [Bill] Craig politely but powerfully built the case for Christianity while simultaneously dismantling the arguments for atheism. From where I was sitting, I could watch the faces of people as they discovered - many for the first time-that Christianity can stand up to rational analysis and rugged scrutiny. In the end it was no contest. Among those who had entered the auditorium that evening as avowed atheists, agnostics, or skeptics, an overwhelming 82 percent walked out concluding that the case for Christianity had been the most compelling. Forty seven people entered as nonbelievers and exited as Christians. Craig's arguments for the faith were that persuasive, especially compared with the paucity of evidence for atheism. Incidentally, nobody became an atheist." ~ Lee Strobel, Case for Christ.

Strobel (not a scholar of ANYTHING, but a journalist) had no way of knowing anything about what people thought after the debate. He's just an ignorant LIAR, as you apparently are.
The "Case for Christ" is not "journalism". It's a one-sided biased piece of crap book that is funny, it's so bad.

The first time I saw Craig lie (... BTW do you know how much he CHARGES for his speeches to church bodies ?, ... he has become wealthy debating for his pocketbook not Jebus).
The first time I saw him lie was in his debate with Bart Ehrman in their debate about the Bayesian probability of the resurrection. Craig got the denominator wrong, (as it approached zero, thus made the division and formula meaningless, .... and he knew it, so his did a hand-wave fast so he attempted to hide the fact his math was totally wrong. Even Ehrman didn't notice it. I contacted Ehrman afterward and pointed out the error and he agreed it went by so fast it was hard to see. Craig knew he was fudging the formula.

The second time I saw him ignore a major problem, for which he was called out and did not respond, was the 2014 debate with Sean Carroll.
Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-y-IbL-yLkk

During the debate Craig refers a number of times to his "logic". He never says which logic he uses, nor did he ever justify the use of the logic he does use.
He couldn't. Craig's entire career is based on his "logic" ... his website is "Reasonable Faith" (even though St. Paul tells him faith is a gift, not the result of reason) ...
yet he could not justify his premises and assumptions. He failed utterly.

Carroll reminded him that there are many logical systems, some totally consistent internally, yet which do not "obtain in reality".
Craig had no answer to that. He failed to justify the very basis of his entire career. Craig is a sham and a loser (and a dishonest debater).