The most obvious opponent would be William Lane Craig. Craig has debated -- and, most would say, handily defeated -- everyone from Bart Ehrman, John Dominic Crossan, Hector Avalos and Marcus Borg to Christopher Hitchens, Victor Stenger, Antony Flew and Keith Parsons. However, according to Lael Arrington, a host of the radio show "The Things That Matter Most," Brian Sapient declined an on air debate with Craig because he didn't feel he was in Craig's league (no shame there -- few people are). As I said, this is according to Lael Arrington, so I can't say if it's true.

Or, if anyone's interested in debating the frankly absurd Jesus mythicist position, I'd recommend James White, who recently handed Dan Barker his rear end in a debate on this very issue. And, if the issue is the reliability of the New Testament, you couldn't do much better than Dan Wallace, one of the most highly respected Koine Greek and New Testament scholars alive today.

"Also, I don't think Craig takes challengers who don't have PH.Ds"

Craig does indeed prefer PhDs -- a reasonable requirement that minimally ensures that his opponents have put some actual work into the fields related to the issues being debated -- but he has waived this requirement a number of times (e.g. Hitchens and Tabash).

"Unfortunately, those "debates" are geared for Craig's style. His opponent has to waste so much time debunking Craig that he can't score points with his own information."

I completely disagree. Craig gives the same opening in each debate (depending on the topic, of course), and, in debates concerning God's existence, he only presents four basic arguments (along with the claim that belief in God is properly basic), so it's patently silly to claim that one wouldn't have enough time to rebut his arguments. If you can't respond to four arguments -- arguments that you know months in advance will be presented -- throughout the course of a two to two and a half hour debate, then the problem isn't with Craig's style, but with your (not you, Jc, but whoever is debating him) understanding of the arguments.

I just finished watching the entire Craig vs Atkins debate on youtube to get a little versed in his work.  Its a little old, but still good.  I do have to admit, Craig was the better speaker, but that surely doesn't make him right although i agree with him on some things.   After listening to him, i am left with a question ive been asking myself since i was 10 and my mom first started telling me god had no begining.  Im going to start a new topic on it, but ill state it here aswell.  But awnser in the new topic I post in 5 minutes.

Lets say Craig is right, the universe was created by a god that has always been.  What exactly was god doing for an eternity surrounded by nothingless before he spontaneously decided "Im bored".  Im mean it doesnt matter how long ago he created the universe, he still would have existed for eternity before it.  Just sitting around (wait not sitting he hadnt created chairs yet) doing nothing FOREVER.  Furthermore down the train of thought, if something has always been is it possible for it at anytime to spontaneously create something.  As far i can think (which could certainly be a further distance) i can't logically understand how something infinite could ever co-exist with something non-infinite, the day would have never come for him to create.  Ming-boggeling to ponder, i find smoking weed helps.