Dr. Craig is a liar.

[Mister Agenda]

Since Steve went on about how sound it is, I decided to take another look at it:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause; (What is this based on? With the exception of virtual particles, we've never witnessed anything 'beginning to exist', it's all transformations from previous states. And virtual particles don't have a cause, just a reason).
2.The universe began to exist; Therefore: (We don't know that. The universe could have existed eternally in different states.)
3.The universe has a cause. (Fallacy of composition; the rules that apply within the universe don't necessarily apply TO the universe. That things need a cause is something we derive from the behavior of things within the universe.)

So, this syllogism is flawed at every turn. Craig follows it with this beauty, as though the previous bit had actually been proven:

1.The universe has a cause; (Not established.)
2.If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful; Therefore:(That list doesn't even follow; it's  a non-sequitur; and immaterial, timeless, and spaceless is literally a description of nothing. Since the math works for a vacuum fluctuation being enough to start a universe; 'enormously powerful' doesn't seem to be justified. Changeless is a contradictory attribute for something that starts changing things. And why couldn't an impersonal cause be responsible? And why couldn't the cause be caused, an infinite chain of causality is no more implausible that a changeless being that changes things?)
3.An uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful. (Just a re-statement of 2.; apparently just so it looks like it's in the proper form of an argument).

Yet Steve is mystified by why we're not impressed by this. Steve, the purpose of apologetics isn't to convince non-believers, it's to reassure believers that they're being reasonable.