William Craig's problem with actual infinities.

[Esquilax]

He applies to the Cosmos what he refuses to apply to god.  And yet, if god had no beginning, then god waited an infinite amount of time, in which he had an infinite amount of thoughts, to create the Universe 13.8 billion years ago.

In another instance of Craig supporting two mutually exclusive ideas, apparently in the expectation that neither of them will be compared to the other, he actually just straight up believes that god didn't have an infinite amount of thoughts, that instead god's mind is changeless (itself a reaction to a contradiction in a third position he holds, wherein matter cannot be timeless and eternal on the basis that it changes, and is thus temporal in nature). So we're to believe, if one were to take seriously every claim Craig makes, that the universe cannot be eternal because infinity is logically problematic, but that god can be eternal just because, and that this god is necessarily changeless, it just so happened to change when it made the universe, and change when it became Jesus, and change a bunch of other times, but it's still changeless because... well, because that is the claim Craig needed to make in order to dismiss objections to previous claims that Craig has made.

That's why you don't need to take any single thing WLC says terribly seriously: skill as an orator aside, Craig's position is actually staggeringly light on content. Any individual argument he makes can be relied upon to contradict at least one past argument, and to in turn be contradicted by a future one, because despite all the pretensions to intellectual rigor that Craig puts up, he rather depends on his audience never taking his stated positions outside of the singular forum in which they are currently being stated, nor outside of their service to their true aim, which is to get to the conclusion that god exists by any means necessary. Is he playing two sides against the middle by asserting that god is a changeless mind when confronted with a rebuttal to his statements about matter, then asserting that god changed in some other context? Yes, of course, but interpreting that as a failure just misunderstands the game Craig is playing: he wins at that game because in both isolated instances he came to the conclusion that god exists, and that is what matters to him. That's what brings in the money.

And we can expect, just as sure as the sun rises in the east, that if we were to take these two statements to Craig in a public venue where he can't just sweep it under the rug, he'll come up with some tapdance or another such that both statements can be true, in the process violating one or two other positions within his ramshackle worldview that we won't discover until after the fact when it's too late. Again, all that matters is that within the moment his worldview gives off the appearance not of being correct, but of being sciency and truthy. If it feels right in the moment of presentation, facts be damned, then Craig has accomplished his goal.