Dear Professor Craig, my name is Abdullah. I'm a student from Kyrgyzstan, whose knights have been consumed for the past three years by your works.

From the tense theory of time to your debate with Opie in God and Time.

Today, I write to you not as an academic, but as someone for whom your analysis of time, in time and eternity, became the key to an existential trap how to reconcile

the rational rigor of the Callum cosmological argument KCA with the existential leap

of faith that in your words must risk itself in the darkness my questions

arise not from a desire to dispute the KCA but from an attempt to locate within your system the point where metaphysics ceases to be abstraction and becomes breath.

What you termed in philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview as the drama of creation.

Number 1.

Time as an attribute of dependency. Why does the KCA

require not a beginning, but necessary dependence? In the Callum Cosmological Argument,

1979, you define beginning to exist as acquiring being through a cause.

Yet, if we accept your model of God's temporal eternity from God and time,

where his existence without the world lacks a temporal axis, then the paradox,

if there was no time prior to t equals zero,

the universe's acquisition of being cannot be a temporal act.

Thus, the KCA proves not a beginning, but ontological dependence,

closer to Thomism than classical column.

Question.

Does this not render the emphasis on beginning a concession to

scientific mainstream Big Bang at the expense of metaphysical rigor? How does this align with

your rejection of the metaphysical principle of sufficient reason in your debate with

Pras? Number two. Assity and the violence of logic.

...