Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

Sorry for the delay. Busy couple of days. Your posts are among the most thoughtful so they are often the ones that take the longest to respond to with equal thought. 

Regarding scientific explanation, the lack of naturalistic explanations for the beginning of the universe is the problem. Of course a naturalistic explanation is preferred. I firmly believe in methodological naturalism. It is the argument that that no longer becomes possible when discussing an explanation of the universe. While a material and efficient cause is preferred, it seems we are stuck considering only an efficient cause.

We aren't stuck considering only an efficient cause.  It's simply that a suitable material cause hasn't been proposed.  That doesn't mean we are hopelessly prevented from investigating the potential of a material explanation to suffice.

When you say ad hoc assumptions, are you referring to why there cannot be an infinite regression of past events? If you want to deny that premise, you can do that, but it is not a defeater for what is held as a metaphysical truth.

No, when I say ad hoc assumptions I am referring to the properties and qualities of God which are pulled out of thin air solely in order to justify the hypothesis.  Things like God being timeless and immaterial, and him having motives for creating the universe.  These aren't pulled from nature and so as part of an explanation of the cause of nature they are ad hoc.  I could just as easily postulate a different set of assumptions with no real reason to deny them. 

Then you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. There was no nature to pull attributes of an uncaused cause from. I keep hearing this claim about we can postulate a different set of assumptions or attributes. Go ahead, postulate a different set of attributes that are only drawn from what metaphysical conclusion of the KCA: an uncaused cause.