Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

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 things can happen without causes, then we have no need of a creator god.  "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." 

- Since you claim your creator god is eternal, you are not avoiding "a past infinite regression absurdity."

- There is no sense of "begin" for which your god didn't begin but the rest of the universe did.  Therefore--even according to your own logic--if the rest of the universe needs a cause, so does your god.

You are not understanding the argument. 

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its beginning.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its beginning.

In order to avoid an infinite regress, that explanation must be uncaused. This is inductive reasoning. Either argue that the universe is eternal and exist necessarily or that causal principles do not apply. Your conclusion "The universe just happened" is every bit as good an explanation as "My god exists without cause." is not an answer. If you do not have successful defeaters for these, you can inductively reason an inmaterial uncaused cause with enough power to create something from nothing.