Dr. Craig is a liar.

[wiploc]

I understand this part.  I don't see anything about it not to understand.  Three points, though:

A- I have no reason to believe it is true.
 
B- I believe it is contrary to the current scientific consensus

C- It seems to me arbitrary and self-serving, as if the worshipper of, say, a blue devil, proclaimed that everything that isn't blue has a cause.   

We can still look at whether your argument is valid, but it already doesn't seem to be sound.

A. 
1. Something does not come from nothing. 

If we accept WLC's claim that nothing comes from nothing, then your theory is dead in the water.  A god cannot create a universe from nothing.  No creator god can exist. 

2. If something can come from nothing, how come we do not see that happening now? Since nothing has no properties, there cannot be any difference between nothing before the universe and nothing now. Our physical laws cannot constrain nothing--because there is nothing to constrain.

Are you arguing that anything that can ever happen must happen all the time?  There can't be old quasars far away because we don't see any new ones happening around here?  

Don't you see what that line of thought does to your theory?  If that's a reasonable argument, then we must conclude that no gods ever created universes because we don't see it happening here now.

3. All of our experiences are 100% in support of this statement. science is based on it.

You made that up.

You would have to present a pretty good reason why we should ignore our experience and intuition when it becomes inconvenient for your theory.

I don't know what you think my theory is.  You keep claiming, in effect, that you know more about my mental processes than I do.  

B. How can there be a consensus when we don't understand enough about quantum mechanics and can't come up with a unified theory of gravity?

My understanding is that most cosmologists like the Copenhagen Interpretation.  I don't have any idea what you think this has to do with a unified theory.

Since none of them can be correct, which theory do you want to say indicates that things can exist uncaused? [emphasis added]

1. The Copenhagen Interpretation.  

If you want to go against that, you can proceed in either of two ways.  You can show that I'm wrong about most cosmologists supporting it, or you can show that you have the personal expertise to contradict the scientific consensus.  

2. Your own theory that a god exists uncaused.  

You now claim that your own theory is among those which you have described as, "none of them can be correct."  

[/quote]