Abstract

In recent times, William Lane Craig’s version of the Kalam Cosmological Argument has become one of the most, if not the most popular arguments for the existence of God. Consequently, it has also invited extensive criticism. One of the key modern objections to the Kalam has been made by Alex Malpass and Wes Morriston, who argue that on Aristotle’s definition of an actual infinite, the beginningless past is not an actual infinite, whereas, if one were to accept William Lane Craig’s definition of actual and potential infinites as well as his temporal ontology, then both the future and the past are either actually or potentially infinite, which is an undesirable consequence for Craig. In this paper I argue that one can argue for the finitude of the past even on Aristotle’s definition of an actual infinite.