Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

I don't think I will ever understand this comeback. The KCA is properly formed, logically sound, not question begging, not equivocating, and not contradictory. The premises of the KCA, if true, infer the cause of the universe (or its predecessor) to be uncaused, timeless, immaterial, personal, and at least powerful enough to bring a universe into being from nothing. This is all it does. It does not get us to the the God of the Christianity and says nothing about other attributes that God might have.

So, how do we get from that to your comeback?

But you can't demonstrate that the KCA's premises are true, can you?  This is a problem for the argument.  

And you still haven't adequately described with supporting evidence how something can exist timelessly, immaterially, not in any space, and without any temporal stream of consciousness, and yet perform an action as powerful as creating the universe.  Or, perform any action at all for that matter.  How does something exist in non-existence and "then" create existence?  You have a lot to answer for here with these bald assertions, and the KCA is not an answer.  [emoji53]

In both cases, you are confusing an inductive argument with a deductive one. 

inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which specific line of reasoning are you objecting to in the KCA? Did you read the presentation of the whole argument (link again below). I can't defend if I do not know specifically what your complaint is. Please read and be specific if you are serious about this. 

 http://www.reasonablefaith.org/popular-a...l-argument