January 21, 2012
This post was formerly titled, “Oh, There’s A Contradiction Alright!” but I changed it in honor of Angra Mainyu because it is such a shining example of the sophistry and willful ignorance so prevalent on the atheist side of contemporary philosophy of religion. Should Angra Mainyu have the wherewithall to return and play fair, and actually demonstrate that which he asserts, I’ll gladly change the title to, “cl Didn’t Get It.” You’ll see, the comment thread says it all.
An interesting blog with some good arguments, among others what appears to be a thorough refutation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
I thought to myself, “That sounds interesting, maybe I’ll go have a look.” Needless to say, a thorough refutation is not what I found. Thorough, yes, but a refutation… not as much so.
Keep in mind that I’m no big fan of William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument. I prefer Aristotle’s whole kinesis approach, because I think it conveys the ontological concepts more clearly, while providing for a seemingly irrefutable argument favoring a specific type of theism. I’ve always felt there was a bit too much ambiguity in Craig’s KCA, but that’s beside the point.
Our author believes he has established a contradiction given Craig’s delineations, and quotes Craig thus:
By an “event,” one means any change. Since any change takes time, there are no instantaneous events so defined. Neither could there be an infinitely slow event, since such an “event” would, in reality, be a changeless state. Therefore, any event will have a finite, nonzero duration.  The reason I hold God to be timeless without the universe is that I think that an infinite regress of events is impossible, and, according to a relational theory of time, in the absence of any events time would not exist. The reason I hold God to be temporal since the beginning of the universe is that the creation of the universe brings God into a new relation, namely, co-existing with the universe, and such an extrinsic change alone (not to mention God’s exercise of causal power) is sufficient for a temporal relation.  So if God is timeless, he is also unchanging, but it does not follow that He cannot change. I’d say that He can change and if He were to do so, He would cease to be timeless. And that’s exactly what I think He did. 
Then, the author responds with a progression of his own, based on what he believes to be airtight responses given Craig’s delineations:
God changes from timeless to temporal.
Any change is an event, so let E(0) be the event “God changes from being timeless to being temporal”. 
Now, if t=0 is the beginning of time, then E(0) is an event that ends at t=0, since t=0 is the first time at which God is temporal.
Since every event has a finite, non-zero duration, E(0) has some duration e>0, and ends at t=0.
Then, there is a time interval of duration e prior to t=0.
That contradicts the hypothesis that t=0 is the beginning of time. 
Hence, the author’s claim that Craig’s delineations lead to a contradiction. Are you sold?
I say the author’s claim is bogus. Before I get into it, can anyone else see where the author went wrong? For those who really, really want a hint, take a look at the 3rd reference to Craig in the author’s citation above…