The Principle of Contingent Causation: The Impossibility of Infinite Regress.

[Bucky Ball]

The problem with this bullshit is the general mistake almost all religionists make, ever since Christianity attempted (and failed) to misappropriate 
The Big Bang Theory in a desperate attempt to say that the universe had a beginning, (and of course that their particular god did it). 

'The Big Bang event is a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an INITIAL STATE of high density and high temperature."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

The very obvious problem, is that the expansionary epoch was not the entire history of the universe, (a flawed assumption) and in fact no one has any idea for how long PRIOR to the expansionary epoch the high temperature and high density state existed, or what started the expansionary epoch. There are other epochs, and I'll let dude look them up, maybe he'll learn something. 

"NOTHING" is not at high temperature and high density. Something already existed, which expanded. Where that came from or what it was, or the length of it's existence is unknown. BEFORE there was an expansionary epoch, there were already "properties" and physical laws, ("hot", "dense"). They existed prior to the expansionary epoch.
   
I think both Guth and Vilenkin rejected Craig's use of their theory, or later had other thoughts about it, ... I will have to find what I wrote about that a few years ago. In other words they themselves rejected this use of their theorem. Dude probably knows that, or ought to and remains just as dishonest as ever.

Found it : 
"Theoretical cosmologist Sean M. Carroll argues that the theorem only applies to classical spacetime, and may not hold under consideration of a complete theory of quantum gravity. He added that Alan Guth, one of the co-authors of the theorem, disagrees with Vilenkin and believes that the universe had no beginning."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde%E2%8...in_theorem Turns out,
Valenkin doesn't either. See below. Craig LIED about the theorem and what it implied.
"At 49:00, (in their debate) Dr. Carroll explains why Craig's argument misrepresents the BGV theorem." ... Dr. Sean Carroll (Cal Tech) schools WLC why his shit is so wrong, in their debate.

"The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem has been used by William Lane Craig to argue that the universe itself had to have a beginning.
We saw that cosmologists I contacted, including Vilenkin, Carroll, and Aguirre, all of whom have published works on the subject, agreed that no such conclusion is warranted."
... Stenger, Victor J. The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning: Why the Universe is not Designed for Us. Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 2011. p. 145

Presuming anything about the universe is intuitively obvious is a huge mistake. Relativity, uncertainty etc etc are not intuitive as is much of the fundamental level of Quantum Mechanics.