Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

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.

1. WLC answers what this is based on for like three pages. Which specific part do you have a problem with? 
2. It could have. You would have to defend why you think a infinite regression of events is not absurd.
3. WLC addressed that objection here:

In order to understand this objection we need to understand the fallacy of composition. This is the fallacy of reasoning that because every part of a thing has a certain property, therefore the whole thing has that same property. While wholes do sometimes possess the properties of their parts (for example, a fence, every picket of which is green, is also green), this is not always the case. For example, every little part of an elephant may be light in weight, but that does not imply that the whole elephant is light in weight.

Now I have never argued that because every part of the universe has a cause, therefore the whole universe has a cause. That would be manifestly fallacious. Rather the reasons I have offered for thinking that everything that begins to exist has a cause are these:

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being out of nothing is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of a hat, at least you've got the magician, not to mention the hat! But if you deny premise (1) you've got to think that the whole universe just appeared at some point in the past for no reason whatsoever. But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause.

2. If something can come into being from nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why just anything or everything doesn't come into being from nothing. Think about it: why don't bicycles and Beethoven and root beer just pop into being from nothing? Why is it only universes that can pop into being from nothing? What makes nothingness so discriminatory? There can't be anything about nothingness that favors universes, for nothingness doesn't have any properties. Nor can anything constrain nothingness, since there isn't anything to be constrained!

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise (1). Premise (1) is constantly verified and never falsified. It is hard to understand how any atheist committed to modern science could deny that premise (1) is more plausibly true than false in light of the evidence.[7]

Note well that the third reason is an appeal to inductive reasoning, not reasoning by composition. It's drawing an inductive inference about all the members of a class of things based on a sample of the class. Inductive reasoning undergirds all of science and is not to be confused with reasoning by composition, which is a fallacy.

So this objection is aimed at a straw man of the objector's own construction.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z48OEBrSeW