Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

I guess that is possible. Can you think of something else that is non-physical that would exist prior to the universe

"Prior to the universe"?  Do you mean causally prior?  If you mean temporally prior, then nothing can be prior; you can't be before time.  But if you mean causally prior, then--since you are abandoning the idea of causes preceding effects--everything that ever has or will exist is a candidate.  Since you have abandoned the normal meaning of "cause," nothing at all can be eliminated as the cause of the universe.   

I know you have this theory that things before time have to be non-physical, but, first, you can have no justification for that claim aside from wanting your non-physical god to be the conclusion of the argument. 

Second, "before time" is self-contradictory gibberish.  You can't draw any logical conclusion from self-contradictory gibberish, not non-physicality or anything else. 

Third, since you have abandoned the requirement that causes precede effects, the cause of the universe need not have happened yet.  As I said above, anything that has happened or will happen, for the entire duration of the universe, may be have been or may yet become the cause of the universe.  
 

that would have some metaphysical properties we can discuss?

We can discuss any metaphysical properties you want. 

Would it have existed necessarily or contingently?

I can't imagine anything existing necessarily, certainly not a god.  There are godless possible worlds.  Therefore, by definition, no god is necessary.

Of course I mean causally prior. That was the sentence I highlighted in your post. Regarding causation, we would have to distinguish between efficient and material causation. For material causation, the cause would have to precede its effect. For efficient causation, the cause can simultaneous with its effect.

Since the idea of God creating the universe would be ex nihilo, there is no material causation--only efficient causation. So, I have not "abandoned" the causal principle and the rest of your conclusions do not follow. 

If nothing exists necessarily, everything exists contingently. Contingent things have an explanation for their existence. Why is there something rather than nothing? To say "I don't know" to that question and then tell a theist that the idea of God is ridiculous is, at best, inconsistent.