Dr. Craig is a liar.

[LadyForCamus]

I think, "turning into" is rather generous here.  [emoji12]

The worst part for me is all the extraordinary fiat regarding god's nature and attributes (assuming we could make rational sense of any of this) without a tiny shred of verifiable evidence to support it.   But we are the dummies for not "just having faith..."

If you think the inferred qualities of uncaused cause, timeless, immaterial, personal, and powerful a presented as fiat, then either you do not understand the term or you do not understand the argument. Regardless of whether you believe the premises to be true, it is a logical argument. Simply dismissing it does nothing to make your case. The only way to defeat an argument is to show some form of logical fallacy or provide defeaters for the premises (see below). Incredulity is not a defeater.  

From wikipedia: 

In epistemology, a defeater is a belief B1 that is held to be incompatible with another belief B2, hence arguments or evidence supporting B1 can be used to refute B2.

- An undercutting defeater is B1 such that B1 does not oppose B2, but rather that the ramifications of B1, were it possible to obtain, casts doubt on the premises for B2.

- An opposing defeater is B1 such that B1 has a factual or otherwise claim that, were it to be obtained, would falsify B2.

It is your fiat I take issue with. I left the KCA behind. Logical arguments, sound or not, aren't sufficient to demonstrate that god exists. You can't even reasonably define the characteristics of God that the KCA is meant to logically conclude! Repeating them over and over like a mantra doesn't make them any less absurd, and we haven't even gotten to your lack of demonstrable evidence yet.

So then, let me get this straight: you would like to put forth a logical argument for the existence of a god who you don't believe is held accountable to logical absolutes?