Do you accept the view traditionally ascribed to Duns Scotus: namely, the univocity of being (pertaining to both God and creatures)? It seems like your interactions with atheists presuppose the ability to reason on a sort of neutral plane of, say, "truth" or "reality."
If so, what do you think about the popular critique of this view as onto-theology? If God and creatures "are" in the same way and in the same respect, then God is just another being among others. The philosophical category of being subsumes even God under its all-encompassing ontological jurisdiction, thereby problematizing his transcendence.
Dr. Craig, what is God? I raise this question in the same manner that I would ask: "What is a concrete object?" For example, is a concrete object a substratum with various properties, or is it maybe just a bundle of tropes? An object, we say, has various properties. God, for instance, has the properties of being all knowing, all powerful, all loving, and all good. But it is always very hard to see what an object could be other than the set of all of its properties. So, then, I'm curious as to how you would approach this question. What is God? Is He something other than all of His properties? If so, what would He be?
Click HERE to read Dr. Craig's response