CosmicSkeptic vs kalam cosmological argument

Alex O'Connor is a brilliant young man known on YoutTube as CosmicSkeptic. His channel is devoted to worthwhile intellectual discussions of various philosophical topics, but most notably natural theology and the ethics of meat-eating.

In 2017 Alex posted a critique of William Lane Craig's kalam cosmological argument (which Craig defends here and here among other places). Unfortunately, as Alex now realizes, his initial critique made several huge mistakes which he discusses in a recent video in which he critiques himself! While I appreciate his honesty and intelligence (as well as his kindness), and while his "debunking" of his own video is very good overall, I found a few issues that I wanted to address here.

First, around the 14:40 mark Alex mostly accurately summarizes the key argument for the personhood of the cause, but he’s still using the wrong terminology; Alex asks how a finite universe can come from an infinite cause and wonders, if the infinite cause is sufficient, then why isn’t the effect likewise infinite.

But when applied to the universe, “finite” and “infinite” are mathematical concepts, but “infinite” is NOT mathematical when applied to the cause, so there’s some unintentional equivocating going on here. WLC puts it like this: if the cause of the universe is timeless and permanent, then, if it’s also sufficient, why isn’t the effect likewise timeless/permanent? It’s all about a temporal origin from a timeless and sufficient cause. WLC asks us to imagine an beginning-less past wherein the temperature has always been below freezing. In this case, it’s silly to think that water would begin to freeze. Any water that was around would have been frozen from eternity past. WLC, following earlier Islamic and Christian philosophers, argues that the only way out of this dilemma is to suggest that the timeless cause in itself isn’t sufficient; its free decision to create is sufficient. Similarly, WLC, asks us to imagine (for sake of clarity and not literalness) a man sitting down timelessly and willing to stand up. The choice to stand makes the beginning of time.

Alex nevertheless manages to communicate the basic gist of the arguments, but his use of “infinite” here is a bit sloppy because he’s applying it to both the universe (where it’s mathematical) and the cause of the universe (where’s it’s qualitative rather than quantitative). 

(These points are discussed in references below, including the cited 2015 lecture and the Blackwell Companion)

Second, although Alex's original video claims that Aquinas argues for a beginning of the universe, and although the new video is supposed to critique the original, Alex still hasn’t explicitly acknowledged that Aquinas did not argue for a beginning of any universe. Thomistic scholars like Edward Feser have repeatedly clarified this point (e.g. here), to no avail. Alex does say that he misstated Aquinas but doesn't explain how. Aquinas believed in a temporal beginning on religious grounds, but he did not argue for it. Rather, he differentiates between a linear/temporal beginning of the universe (what he calls an accidentally ordered series) on the one hand, and then on the other hand a hierarchical (or essentially ordered) series that occurs here and now. Aquinas grants the possibility of a beginning-less accidentally ordered series for the sake of argument but then uses philosophical arguments against an infinite hierarchical series. Finally,  around 22:45 Alex claims that WLC does not regard the big bang as indicative of an absolute beginning but instead argues for such a beginning via philosophical arguments. This is partly mistaken. It’s true that WLC’s primary arguments for the finitude of the past are philosophical rather than scientific-- e.g. alleged absurdities ensuing from actual infinities and the impossibility of traversing infinity via successive addition, with the latter requiring WLC's defense of the A-theory of time (here, here, and here). But WLC also does argue that contemporary cosmology strongly points to an absolute beginning even if there’s a multiverse or cyclic model. See his chapter on the kalam (coauthored with a physicist) in the 2009 Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, or his 2014 debate with Carroll (where both men failed IMO-- see a review by Barnes, Wall, and Cram here), or his 2015 lecture at University of Birmingham in England, etc. PS. For the record, I am not convinced by WLC's arguments for the kalam.