Mr Craig proved that infinite God does not exist as infinity as he suggested is impossible. Nothing comes from nothing that means nothing should have qualities as modern science and quantum mechanics suggest. God is a more complicated problem than the solution it applies and don't solve anything as the question remains how God came from nothing. Morality is very clear that is not objective and alter depending on the physiology of humans, culture, environment the illusion of objectiveness on morality comes from morality being the evolution of our the two basic instincts ho are essential for every species to exist.
1 The infinity that doesn't exist is different the the infinite that God is. You can't have an infinite sequence of events, but the statement 'God knows all knowable things' is not the same infinity.
2. Quite often more complicated problems result from simple conundrums- an apple falling is simple. Gravity? Whoa- very not simple!
3. God is a necessary being, that is to say his existence is uncaused. If he was caused the thing which caused him would be God- at least try and attack the God based on a shared definition. A created god is by definition a false god. Asking what created God is like asking what the number 7 smells like. God just is in the way that numbers just exist.
4. you're here committing the genetic fallacy- attempting to say that because objective moral views were developed by society they are therefore false. Just because you can explain a belief's origin does nothing to falsify that belief. I'm sure you once thought something because your parents told you so- does that make the thing your parents told you false? Not at all!
5. Objective morals are needed for species to exist
No animals except humans have (or even 'have developed') morality! Fish eat each other, animals regularly kill each other, have incest, all kinds of things that are both morally wrong from our point of view and detrimental to their collective survival. Dawkins showed in the Selfish Gene how only individual DNA matters, the survival of the group is only incidental. (You know you're flawed when I'm even citing Dawkins against you!) So if you think that harming other humans for pleasure is wrong whether the harm-er and harm-ee think so or not then you observe objective morals. Even if you say 'I think people should act in the way their culture says is right" you're still affirming a way of acting that is binding in all circumstances and on all contrary views- an objective moral law.