This is wrong. Craig asserts that infinite prior time is impossible.
The claim expressed earlier in this thread was that Craig was discussing an infinite time prior to the universe ("No infinite interval of waiting for the universe is necessary"). That's what I've been saying he never discusses.
Yes, he does say that infinite prior time (prior to now) is impossible.
Some cosmological models defended today do in fact include space without time.
No they don't
Sure they do. There are proposals that (1) there is no passage of time at the fundamental level of reality, that (2) what we call the passage of time only is a kind of epiphenomenon, and that (3) it is not the case that this epiphenomenon is always manifested wherever space-like physical structure exists. See for example "The Problem of Time in Quantum Gravity" by Edward Anderson for some answers to the problem of time which attempt to make time non-fundamental. There are also other proposals which do regard time as fundamental that say there could nevertheless be time-free zones within the universe in places where the rate of expansion equals c. (To be clear, none of this is the consensus view in cosmology; but such models have been defended.)
[M]y point is that he thinks it's a problem for Physics when it isn't.
Craig accepts the view that the universe doesn't have to be infinitely old. He bases this in part on arguments from physics. He doesn't think this is a problem for physics; he accepts the physics.
I'm quite familiar with the KCA and this is an extremely disingenuous statement because all the KCA does is replace "energy" with "magic."
I said the Kalaam does not assume any net energy would be required to create the universe. That's true: it does not assume, imply, or critique any proposition related to the net energy of the universe. There's nothing disingenuous about this remark. You may have a complaint about the Kalaam in that it appeals to a supernatural cause, but that is a separate issue from whether or not the Kalaam argument assumes, implies, or critiques any proposition about the net energy of the universe. That was my only point there.
I majored in Philosophy and Religion. I studied all of the classical arguments for God. I never saw a coherent definition of "God."
Some definitions of "God" are so simple that I am curious where you think the incoherence lies. A typical example is Hatcher who defines God as "a unique, self-caused (uncaused), noncomposite, universal cause, if such a phenomenon exists." He also defines the other terms used in that definition, in case there is any ambiguity there. He formalizes his definition in terms of sets and relational logic. It's all straightforward. Maybe he is wrong that such an entity exists. But the meaning of his definition is clear to me. Where is the incoherence?
The word "God" is incredibly incoherent and undefined
[...]
Yes, and those definitions including Craig's are always question-begging, scientifically useless nonsense.
You don't like his definition. I get it. But "undefined" and "has a scientifically useless definition" / "has a question-begging definition" are different concepts. Division by 0 is undefined (in standard arithmetics). "Nigritude ultramarine" is undefined as a color. "God" is not undefined by Craig because he has literally given a definition.