I came into this little project with a distinct bias - some of it received from other atheist critiques of Dr. Craig, some of it developed through watching videos of his debates. That bias is that Dr. Craig knows how to win debates. Getting into the details has been interesting, but the "cumulative case for the existence of God" is being made mostly by the persuasive power of Dr. Craig - not by any new evidence or profound philosophical insight.
I retain grudging respect for Dr. Craig's ability as a debater, but it has opened my eyes to the unscrupulous tactics being used by one of the (allegedly) most prominent Christian apologists in the world today. As I head into the home stretch on this little project, I hope to have learned from this exercise - what to expect from a theist, what to respond with and how as an atheist. If I can do that, then this will have been all worthwhile.