Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Simon Moon]

The whole truth of the conclusion rests entirely on the premises being entirely accurate, because that's all it's built on. If one of the premises is wrong for just one tiny area of reality, or if they don't apply to reality itself, or if there are any other premises which may in any way alter the conclusion, the whole thing is completely flawed. There is no way to assess just how off-course this takes it. It's not a case of "how close" they might be, it rests on complete accuracy. Unlike science, where the suitability of the premises can be tested by making predictions. These arguments without evidence produce a blind, useless result.

How exactly do you calculate the probability that the premises are totally accurate, for all of our reality and beyond, and that no relevant premises have been excluded? I'd estimate it at 0%. Can you produce a calculation that says otherwise?

That does not make the argument invalid. 

My understanding of assigning probability to an inductive argument is looking at the relationship of the probability of the premises and the conclusion. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

Fallacy - Affirming the consequent.

What this premise does, is say there are 2 sets: 1 is the set of everything that begins to exist. The other is the set of everything that does not begin to exist. 

So Steve, how many members are in the set of everything that does not begin to exist, and what are they?

2. The universe began to exist

Fallacy - equivocation.

Uses a different definition of the phrase "began to exist" than in the first premise. 

The first premise is describing things we observe in the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter/energy. THis is creation ex material.

While, in premise 2, you are describing creation ex nihilo.

3. The universe has a cause (and we can assign some description to the cause)

Due to invalid modus ponens, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Assign a probability to each premise and the conclusion's probability cannot be lower than the lowest of the premises. It can be higher. There are only two of them so it is not all that complex. Since each premise is reasoned out and defeaters for them seem to be at least less plausible, the conclusion that the universe has a timeless, powerful, transcendent cause seems to also be > 50%.

There is no reason to even try to discuss probabilities until you present a valid and sound argument. 

I am not saying this is 100% proof for God. Only saying that it supports the concept of the God of the Bible.

Even if the argument was valid and sound, it only would support a first cause.

Which could in fact be, a phase change in the singularity. 

No gods required.


EDIT: Oh yeah. The argument also contains the fallacy of composition, since just because something is true of part of the universe, does not mean it is true for the universe itself.