Earlier, I submitted a question about theism and objective morality to William Lane Craig’s Q&A page. My question was basically an objection to his moral argument for God’s existence. Craig has not replied to that question, though I’m sure he gets way too many questions to answer.
Today, I submitted another question. This one attempts to assist him in defending his Kalam Cosmological Argument:
You say that the Kalam Cosmological Argument depends on the reality of temporal becoming, and therefore on a “dynamic” rather than a “static” view of time. It is widely held that special relativity is incompatible with a dynamic view of time, though this incompatibility has been denied by philosophers such as Michael Tooley, Quentin Smith, and yourself.
Recently, Bradford Skow at MIT has defended a view that combines eternalism (aka the standard “block universe” view of most physicists) with an assertion of objective temporal becoming – a view called the “moving spotlight” theory of time. (Skow, “Relativity and the Moving Spotlight.”) He has also argued that this theory of time is compatible with special relativity.
Are the assumptions of the Kalam Cosmological Argument compatible with the “moving spotlight” theory of time? If so, it seems this would be one way to invite “block universe” believers to consider the merits of the Kalam Cosmological Argument once more.
Thanks for your time,