I dont really understand this you say his arguments have been debunked yet you say "God cannot be empirically studied, therefore facts about God cannot be established by a human perspective", isnt that a contradiction?
The bold sentence you quoted describes the understanding of empirical science established within the Christian world in the 13th and 14th century, credited to Thomas of Aquino and William of Ockham. This understanding of science was a key to bring forth the scientific revolution. The muslim world were lead to another conclusion which makes science and theism much more difficult to coexist.
I will explain some of the key reasons how WLC can be debunked below.
As for the last part I dont think you can nullify WLC's arguments with a statement like that using maths as there are several examples in maths that work like that. For example
.999 repeater = 1
It works within itself. Math in its entirety is a human construct that inheritly rely on itself, but because of it's precision within itself we can try to apply math to the natural world. If we properly use math on a natural event that we can study in a lab, we can also establish/guess how the same natural event when multiplied make up the fabric of reality beyond our labs. It's this way we can know with precision we can know the weather of tomorrow without a timemachine, or whether or not a bridge will collapse within the next 50 years. But if we make the slightest mistake within our lab, we are going to make the wrong conclusions about tomorrow.
Now back to Craig. His arguments are based on a foundation of
misrepresenting the subjects he rely on. For example, he change established philosophical standpoints, science and history and go from there.
To understand the philosophical background to those subjects you need to have a basic education in philosophy, requiring you to sacrifice the time and effort to grasp the philosophy. There are no crash courses for those. It took me years of study to grasp these standpoints. If I speak in front of someone who do not have the education I do, it's easy for me to manipulate who ever trust me in what I have to say. This is also why scientists find it so frustrating to hear someone do this, because the consequences of misconstruing or misrepresenting high-level ideas are terrible.
For example, one of his commonly repeated arguments is to ask whether naturalism
is true. Naturalism is a
conclusion. Conclusions cannot be rated
true or false, they are the product of the premise that the conclusion rely on. An analogue again, imagine a calculation; there are two apples and 3 oranges in the bag, how many fruits is in the bag? 2+3=5. 5 is the conclusion while "2" and "3" are the premises that 5 rely on. You cannot change 5 or discuss the truth of 5, it's automatically true
if there are actually two apples and 3 oranges in the bag. The scientific debate, if any, is if there are actually 2 apples and 3 oranges in the bag.
WLC dont. He argues whether or not 5 is true, without discussing the 2 or 3 that the 5 is based on. He argues whether or not naturalism is true, not the facts that if true lead to naturalism. When he construct the sentence "whether naturalism is true", anyone with some philosophical understanding collapse in their brain, because that sentence makes no sense.
When you know the philosophical definitions of these words, you are bothered when WLC spend half an hour arguing something similar to whether or not a hammer or the color red is true. It makes no sense. It might sound decent for someone without the philosophical understanding of the words though, which is why there's rhetorical power to it. To someone who understand the philosophy you get frustrated how someone can be so intellectually dishonest.
For an alternative setting I recommend 