The gist of the commentary is: "You, Stephen Law, don't know why the universe exists? Then you can't deny my God exists! I win! You're insane!"
Unfortunately, this way of thinking is very deeply entrenched in the minds of some of Craig's more dimwitted followers (not all of his followers, of course - plenty of them will wince at this).
The truth is an atheist might succeed in showing that Craig's God does not exist, whether or not that atheist knows the answer to the question "Why does the universe exist?", and whether or not they bother to refute Craig's Kalam cosmological argument. That's what I aimed to do in this debate, as I explained several times.
In this clip, Craig insists I need to address his Kalam cosmological argument. It's obvious I don't need to do that in order to show Craig's God does not exist.
There's a moral here so far as reaching this kind of person is concerned. The moral is:
You can never point out clearly enough, loudly enough, and enough times that, just because we don't know why the universe exists, or why it's fine-tuned, and haven't bothered to refute the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn't mean we haven't decisively ruled out their God.
See the Sherlock Holmes fallacy.