Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Pat Mustard]

From what I can gather Steve's argument (roadrunner doesn't go so far to actually forward an arguments, he just snipes at other posters) is essentially that the universe must have by its nature certain conditions, first that there was a period where it didn't exist (but where time did), second that it was created, third that it was created according to a conscious plan (as all things need these three things), thus god.

However his argument falls apart, because when it comes to god none of these things necessary, he arbitrarily excludes god from the set of "all things" because it creates uncomfortable questions for him, viz "who maketh the maker?" and "is it gods all the way back?"

You forgot a necessary attribute in your list. Whatever caused the universe (or its predecessor) must have been uncaused to avoid a past infinite regression absurdity. 

That's why the Kalam Argument is phrased "Anything that began to exist must have a cause of it's existence".

If everything has to have a cause, then the "cause" of the universe also has to have a cause to be counted within the set of everything. That is the giant hole at the centre of the Kalam bullshittery (which is frankly a restatement of Aquinas for idiots who think updating the language used in an argument will cause it to be seen as a new argument which hasn't previously been refuted).

Either god himself has a cause, or else he is no thing (i.e. he cannot exist by definition), using Kalam.

Idiot.