Dr. Craig is a liar.

[SteveII]

If the universe began to exist, then the universe has a cause of its beginning.

............................................................

1. Something cannot come from nothing. To claim that something can come into being from 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.

If you wish to point to this claim as support for some other claim, fine...but you'll have to remain consistent with it - and we both know you won't.  

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 come 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, for there isn’t anything to be constrained!

Why are you asking questions as though someone had to answer for your lack of imagination or knowledge, lol?  Generally, when a person is supporting a premise, they offer explanations.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1'. The science of cosmogeny is based on the assumption that there are causal conditions for the origin of the unuiverse. So it’s hard to understand how anyone committed to modern science could deny that (1') is more plausibly true than false.

The science of cosmogeny is based upon methodological materialism and causal determinism, which, like the first bit of support you offered...we both know you won't be able to remain consistent with.

-In summary: It's insensible to point to authorities or authoritative statements that you will later deny the authority of: "These statements are true, except when they aren't..and my case is a case where they aren't".  Fine, but why are we discussing authorities or authoritative statements that do not apply to the god you are proposing?  Their truth in one case speaks to an exemption to that truth how?  More confusingly...why are we discussing something and nothing at all?  Where in the premise is either referenced...how could such a discussion be support of the premise -regardless of the truth of any proposition offered-?

First, thanks for addressing the points and not what everyone else did: various versions of "prove it". 

This list was from the link I supplied. I did not write it (I'm really tired of writing it). 

Regarding your point, it seems you are saying the argument is special pleading for God. P1 says "began to exist". Isn't the argument of most atheist to say the universe did not begin to exist? Doesn't that simply move the question to "did the universe begin to exist"?  No special pleading.