I believe this is all based on a misunderstanding of some of the science involved and in a superficial reading of Craig's work in which he's talking about how different philosophies of time impact the cosmological argument.
The accusations from Vincent
Vincent made a lot of claims against me that I'd like to address in order of complexity, starting with the simplest.
Defining Lorentz Invariance
Vincent misunderstands me when I say that “Lorentz Invariance” means Time Dilation and Length Contraction." I was talking in the context of a quote from Craig where he says "Lorentz Invariance is apparent, not real". In that context, the evidence we have for Lorentz Invariance is Time Dilation and Length Contraction. That's how we observe Lorentz Invariance, I'm not trying to do a definition there.
Vincent also makes illusions to Craig's views getting support from noted physicist John Bell, which is misleading.
As I've addressed previously, Bell was talking about the Lorentzian view of Special Relativity as one possible solution to the tension Bell's Theorem causes in physics between quantum mechanics and relativity. Bell didn't actually endorse the Neo-Lorentzian view, he had mentioned it as one possible way of many theoretical ones that can solve the issue.
Bell did advocate teaching the Neo-Lorentzian view of Special Relativity before then teaching the standard Einstein-Minkowski space-time interpretation so that students could better understand the amazing implications of relativity.
Vincent takes issue with my charge of "timeless causation" against the Kalam. He states:
Finally, I simply don't buy the argument that a timeless God cannot create the universe. Craig's reply that God exists timelessly without (or beyond) the universe, with a timeless intention to create a universe with a beginning, makes perfect sense to me. In any event, is it any less coherent to say that the multiverse (which is also outside time) created the universe? If you accept the latter, I can't see why you'd balk at the former.
But here Vincent is confused about the science involved, and the different understandings of time and causality at play. This confusion can ironically be cleared up by reading some of William Lane Craig's own writing on the issue!
On the B-Theory which is strongly supported by Einstein's relativity, our space-time always exists. This is the view of universe Stephen Hawking endorses, in fact when Hawking talks about "imaginary time" he's really referring to space-time realism. In this way time can be finite, but still always exist.
Similarly, on this view, causality isn't inherently time dependent (Craig explicitly discusses this) and if you still hold to theism the universe becomes "contingent upon god". The issue here is that this view contradicts the idea of creation ex-nihilo (out of nothing), which Craig objects to.
The problem for the Kalam here is that once causality is no longer time dependent, Craig loses all impetus to say that there must be a cause if time is finite. There still could be a cause, but you can't argue that there must be one. At this point the Kalam argument fails, and Craig has to switch to a Leibniz Cosmological argument which deals with things in terms of necessity and contingency. The problem there is that there are refutations of that and such an argument can't even pretend to appeal to scientific support. The entire appeal of the Kalam is that it supports the vague notion that "Science really shows that god must exist!" that is popular in apologetics.
But what about my objection to Craig's appeal to timeless causation? Aren't I being hypocritical?
The issue here is my objection to Craig's version of timeless causation on his very specific version of the A-Theory. Craig himself discusses the problems with his own view:
So on the view I propose, God exists timelessly without the universe with a timeless intention to create a universe with a beginning. He exercises His causal power, and time as a result comes into being, along with the first state of the universe, and God freely enters into time. It all happens co-incidentally, that is, together at once. This is, I own, a mind-boggling conclusion, but makes better sense to me than the alternatives.
When Countering the Kalam, I don't hitch my proverbial wagon completely to the B-Theory of time. What I did argue in my philosophy video is the idea that on Craig's view an actual infinity is preferable to timeless causation. This is because Craig's arguments against an actual infinite fail, and some objections raised against them have been unaddressed for nearly a decade.
That said, lets say you disagree with that preference for actual infinities. The stronger point I demonstrate is that on Craig's view of time, at the very least there is simply no clear way to decide between which of the two "absurdities" is true, which leaves the Kalam not establishing it's conclusion.
Similarly, when I discuss quantum nucleation cosmological theories that are proposed by Alexander Vlienkin, Alan Guth, and popularized by Lawrence Krauss I'm talking about theories that are compatible with both the A and B Theory of time, so it's not a case where if we ever found out that the B-Theory was not likely to be true, we're not stuck dealing with the Kalam again.
Vincent alleges that I've misrepresented William Lane Craig's views when I've claimed that Craig does not believe that Time Dilation and Length Contraction are only "apparent" and "not real". This is despite the fact that Craig explicitly states this about his neo-Lorentzian theory. To support this charge, Vincent links to this footnote in an article by Craig on god and time where Craig says the exact opposite:
This is, in fact, the modern Lorentzian interpretation of STR, which holds that velocity affects one's measuring devices so that moving rods contract and moving clocks run slow. Such an interpretation does not commit one to a substantival aether, but merely to an aether frame, i.e., a privileged frame of reference. That the Lorentzian interprets length contraction and time dilation as not merely apparent, but real, cannot be cited as a disadvantage of the theory, since the Einsteinian also must posit real contraction and dilation...These are contradictory statements, did Craig change his mind?
The short answer is no he hasn't changed his mind, Craig has not contradicted himself either, and I have not misrepresented his views. Craig is simply talking about different things that span both science and philosophy of time.
The long answer involves getting into some science. Lets do this.
Einstein's relativity combined with quantum mechanics forms what's known as the Standard Model for particle physics. In fact the reason finding the Higgs Boson was such a big deal is because it was the last particle predicted by the Standard Model that we hadn't found evidence for yet.
To put it mildly, the Standard Model is a pretty big deal in physics. If one of the underlying theories that form the basis of the Standard Model (like relativity) were to be proven false it would trigger a massive shift in physics.
This massive shift wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing, it could provide us with unique insights which would indirectly lead us to understand quantum gravity and ultimately come up with a more complete theory that describes all of physics.
This is what Craig is referring to in the footnote Vincent linked to. This is the efforts by some scientists to test the assumptions of Einstein's Special Relativity to see if there is something wrong with them.
Standard Model Extension
The Standard Model Extension (SME) is a theoretical framework which would explain all available data that we currently have, but it allows for Lorentz symmetry to be violated. If Lorentz symmetry was violated, it would mean that one of the critical assumptions of Einstein's special relativity would be violated, which would trigger that massive shift in physics I mentioned earlier.
The key thing here is that this is a theoretical framework, but that it also makes predictions that can in principle be tested. These tests are exactly what's being done by scientists studying this area. It's actually pretty rough since the theory is that violations of Lorentz symmetry would be extremely small and thus hard to detect.
Here's the thing, so far the tests have all failed, and Special Relativity (as well as the Standard Model) still stand.
What they're looking for
The assumption Einstein made that is being tested is that "That the laws of physics are constant across all reference frames." This basically means that there's no privileged reference frame where the laws of physics don't work the same way that they do in all other reference frames. The idea is that physics is the same no matter where you are or how fast you're moving.
In the SME, the effects of Lorentz invariance (ie. time dilation and length contraction) are as "real" as they are in the Standard Model. The idea is that they actually happen, time actually slows down, rods actually get shorter, etc in a majority of reference frames. The kicker is that there would still be a reference frame where this didn't happen, a privileged frame where the laws of physics themselves were different.
How is this different than Craig's Neo-Lorentzian view?
The biggest difference is that in the SME, this privileged reference frame, if it existed, could be detected and described. The idea in SME is that Special Relativity is correct (ie reflects what really happens) in most reference frames that we can observe, but that there is a special frame where it doesn't apply.
In Craig's Neo-Lorentzian view, he takes the idea that the equations in Special Relativity incorrect in that that they merely explain what appears to happen, not what actually happens. The key distinction is that Craig's view is unprovable and unfalsifiable, where as SME predicts things that if correct, we can verify them.
What Craig Wants
What William Lane Craig really wants is for the A-Theory of time to be true (ie. that space and time are absolute), and he wants the evidence we have against that view to be shown to be problematic. Right now the evidence we have from Special Relativity shows that space and time are relative, not absolute.
To get around this problem Craig endorses the Neo-Lorentzian view, the ultimate punt into metaphysics which states that the question of space and time being relative or absolute is something that in principle can't be answered by science.
However, Craig would be equally happy to have SME turn out to be true, so that his Neo-Lorentzian view becomes unnecessary. Incidentally, this is exactly the same kind of excitement he showed when it looked like relativity may have been over turned by undermining the other assumption - that nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately for Craig both efforts to undermine relativity have come up short, so all he can do is make extravagant unfalsifiable assumptions about relativity to try and keep the A-Theory of time as a live option.
The problem of course, is that so far Einstein and the Standard Model have held up, so Craig is left appealing to his unfalsifiable privileged frame to try and pretend the Kalam is a live option in anything but the minds of people who already commit to god's existence, or an esoteric philosophy of time.
I realize that there is a lot of material here, but I want it to be clear that I've not at all misrepresented Craig or gotten the science wrong. Hopefully I've done that.