I think I see where the thread is going so I will try to summarize / predict the overall outcome:
Dawkins fails to convince the faithful.
Lennox fails to convince the unfaithful.
The above two points must surely be taken for granted.
If by "must surely be taken for granted" you mean must be assumed true then I have to disagree, due to ambiguity for now, and undoubtedly for other reasons once you remove the ambiguity. I'm referring to the terms "faithful" and "unfaithful." Does faithful refer to fundamenatlist Christians? All Christians? All members of Judeo-Christian faiths? All believers in God? And does unfaithful refer to atheists? Non-Christians? Judeo-Christians? Non-fundamentalist Christians?
I'm also not completely certain of the debate's topic, but from what I've heard so far I gather they were debating whether God exists.
With that in mind can someone please explain to me why on earth I would ever listen to the arguments of some random unqualified poster on a forum like this? I maintain it is completely pointless to debate such concepts in a forum like this.
How are people here different from anyone you might meet at church, work, social events, etc?
These types of low-level debates add nothing to the larger discussion, thus only serve to create division and discord between both sides. We are not Dawkins and Lennox level thinkers.
I don't know that Dawkins or Lennox are the quality thinkers you think they are. I'm not familiar with Lennox, but I've seen lots of bullshit from Dawkins, especially in The God Delusion
, which is why I stopped reading it.
Discussions here are only "low-level" in that no one here is well known. Discussion here is often highly informed.
It's time to get realistic about that and stop arguing with each other.
If the arguments and evidence for Lennox's point of view are so strong (I think you used the word "destroy" at one point) then I don't understand why you don't believe their weight will carry the day once presented here.