This next one is another objection to the conclusion; it says that the qualities ascribed to God – timelessness, changelessness, etc., are only negative attributions that are also true of nothingness.
In his response, Dr. Craig yet again erroneously conflates "coming from nothing" with "coming into being without a cause". I've already discussed the perspective of modern physicists on this topic, so no need to rehash it.
Otherwise, I'm rather unpersuaded by this rebuttal. He fudges when he talks about the causal power of this "entity" who brought the universe into existence – the Kalam, even if it weren't riddled with fallacies, could not be used to infer that this cause must be any sort of conscious entity.
But for me, the biggest problem here is that Craig doesn't seem pay any mind to the paradoxes he is conjuring up. If a being is timeless and changeless, it is by definition non-functional. Any sort of act or decision, for example, would constitute both a change in its conscious state and a sequence of temporal events. So, how can God exist in this logically self-contradictory way? Craig doesn't say. This just further goes to show how nonsensical it is to cantilever intuitive assumptions derived from observation of physical reality into untested – and perhaps untestable – supernatural realms whose existence is speculative anyway.
Previous: Part 8
Next: Part 10