William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[Esquilax]

I went to see WLC at Rutgers last week. Interesting talk. While you dismiss out of hand the Kalam argument, he spoke for 2 hours defending each premise.

And knowing the actual content-to-word ratio Craig usually works to, those two hours probably contained about twenty words of real applicable content. I don't take "Craig opened and closed his talk-hole for two whole hours!" to be an indicator of the content of what came out of it. You can read the phone book for two hours.

For example, you say that it's just his assertion that there are two categories 1) things that begin to exist and 2) things that don't begin to exist. He went on at some length defend the premise that there cannot be a past infinity so therefore we can conclude that there is at least one thing that did not begin to exist.

Leaving aside the special pleading of arguing that there can be no past infinity besides god, this is also irrelevant, since beginning to exist requires a temporal framework that doesn't necessarily exist beyond the formation of the universe. Actually thinking about the state of affairs shows that it's entirely possible for the universe to not begin to exist, in that measurable time would only occur post-universe creation, while still not being past infinite, in that there was no past to be infinite in.

See, this is the main problem with the way Craig works; he constructs elaborate alternative universes in which his god is a viable conclusion, by fiat assertion alone, but then fails to demonstrate that we live in this fantasy world he needs to imagine in order to get to the conclusion he's already come to.

The Kalam does mainly deal with first cause. Then we investigate what characteristics must the first cause have.

And I've never once seen Craig or anyone else do anything other than assert those characteristics by fiat. Even you are content to tell us your conclusions, while skipping the justification for them entirely.

We concludes that whatever it is, it must be spaceless,

Why are you assuming that the only space there could possibly be is inside our universe?

timeless,

Actions require a temporal framework by necessity, in that the moment an action occurs it can be measured in terms of commonly understood demarcations of time. If you're going to argue that the first cause is conscious, it cannot also be timeless.

immaterial,

Why?

uncaused,

What if it was caused by something else that didn't begin to exist?

and unimaginably powerful.

That doesn't follow. An entity could have universe creation as its sole attribute, while being incapable of anything else. Leaving aside the utter vagueness of the term "powerful," an entity that can only do the one thing while being unable of doing simple things we take for granted cannot possibly be more powerful than us.

And since a first cause was an intentional act, we can argue that it was a conscious mind.

When did you establish that it was an intentional act? Kalam palms this card every time its used, and when you people are called on it you just use an argument from ignorance, as though your own incredulity gets you out of having to justify the things you say.

The Kalam was not meant to get anyone to the God of Christianity.

It doesn't get you to anything, because each individual part of it is flawed.