Dr. Craig is a liar.

[RoadRunner79]

P1 has problems:

• We don't know that it's true; it's an arbitrary assumption.
  
• Physics (quantum mechanics) rejects P1 as false.  Very tiny things do not seem to have causes, and the beginning of the big bang would have been very tiny. To claim otherwise is to renounce science, or to proclaim that one is smarter and more authoritative than science.
  
  
  
• P1 is arbitrary and self serving.  If, instead of an unbegun god, you worshiped a blue god, P1 would read, "Everything that isn't blue has a cause of its existence."  And, thus modified, the argument would be exactly as strong as it is in WLC's version

Ah, yes.   This reminds me a bit of that "maximally great being" (ontological?) argument, where we can substitute "maximally great" with "maximally smelly", or whatever suites your fancy, and it works out exactly the same.  Perhaps we have a maximally smelly, blue, uncaused God!  Thanks for your insight.

If you ignore the reasons for the claim, you could do that.  Can I take evolution, and just substitute in other things, to show that the claims are absurd?