William Lane Craig continues to desperately defend the indefensible.

[dyresand]

Not necessarily. Its a bit ambiguous because of how he presents it, which is why I don't like his version. People start thinking about the big bang and origin of the physical universe, etc.

I don't see how.

If he's using examples of everything we observe in our universe, to point to "things that begin to exist", then he is pointing out things that begin to exist ex materia.

But if he's claiming that the universe begins to exist ex nihilo, that is an equivocation fallacy because he is using "begins to exist" with 2 different definitions.

Every version of Kalam I've heard does this.

It also contains the fallacy of composition. The first premise refers to every "thing," and the second premise treats the "universe as if it were a member of the set of "things." But since a set should not be considered a member of itself, the cosmological argument is comparing apples and oranges.

Wouldn't the Kalam also defeat god instead of helping him more or less if you give reasons for things to exist like the material world and if you apply that to anything or a divine being something that isn't proven to be material then well you pretty much said god doesn't exist with that claim.
Also a claim like that would mean since there is no god things exist because they were created the whole argument falls apart.