Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

[quote pid='1269212' dateline='1462708954']
Regarding explanatory power, I think you are forgetting we are talking metaphysics and not lab experiments. The KCA is an inductive argument, and as such the premises are providing strong evidence for the conclusion in a probabilistic sense. In contrast, a deductive argument would be certain.  In addition, when discussing explanatory power, you are usually comparing two or more theories. When you compare God creating the universe to "I don't know", I would say that the God hypothesis is superior--especially since there are no logical errors in the argument.

Logical arguments and logical explanations are two different things.  You're conflating one with the other.  The fact that there are metaphysical arguments which may point toward God being a necessary assumption does nothing to enhance the quality of that explanation in terms of explanatory power.  If all you mean to say is, "It's magic, so it doesn't have to explain anything" then I think you've lost before you've started.  Metaphysical concepts have to explain, too.  And when they don't, it is regarded as a failure.  Regardless, this is just an attempt to exclude God from the same consideration that other hypotheses have to face.  And it fails.
[/quote]
Logical arguments are used to examine what the possible explanations might be. This is an inductive argument with a probabilistic conclusion about a metaphysical question. If you want to offer defeaters of the premises to undercut them and therefore reduce the probability that they are true, that is fine. 

When you say "Metaphysical concepts have to explain, too" are you talking about Deutsch's  "hard to vary" concept? If that is the case, what details could be easily changed around in KCA argument? If you change any of the premises, you don't get the conclusion. The inferred properties of an uncaused cause are timeless, immaterial, powerful, and personal -- none of which can be left out and still be a coherent hypothesis.

Regarding the constant objection to excluding God from having a cause, you are missing the whole point of this particular inductive argument which is to investigate if the universe has a cause and what properties must that cause have. Since the universe and its cause are not the same thing and they obviously have different properties, there is nothing illogical about inferring those properties.