On a recent Q & A on Reasonable Faith, a fan of Dr. Craig's ministry asked whether it is logical for a being to be both atemporal and personal. Craig's answer: Yes! Here's how he goes about justifying it and where I think he goes wrong.
First, I have argued many times that a timeless mind is by definition, non-functional. Minds think. That's all they do. Thinking is a verb; it's a process. The absence of time means one cannot think, and if one cannot think, it doesn't have a mind. On Craig's view, god is atemporal only sans the creation, and is temporal with creation. Under this view, the god that exists now is a temporal god, who is "free" to change with the passage of time. So since Craig believes the god who exists since the moment of creation is temporal, I'm going to focus on the atemporal god who is said to have existed prior, whether logically or temporally, to creation.
The questioner quoted an argument from an apparent atheist that said:
But let's examine this further.
God does decide in the sense that His will intends toward one alternative rather than another and does so freely. It is up to God what He does; He could have willed otherwise. This is the strongest sense of libertarian freedom of the will. In God’s case, because He is omniscient, His free decisions are either everlasting or timeless rather than preceded by a period of ignorance and indecision.
How could god have willed otherwise if he knew timelessly that he was going to create our universe? It seems as if Craig is arguing that god thought about whether or not to create a world, as well as all the possible worlds he could create and then freely decided he was going to go with ours, but this all happened without time. That doesn't seem coherent to me. If god knows his conclusions then this doesn't strike me as having free will, especially when those conclusions are not based on logical outcomes inferred from premises but are instead a matter of personal choice and preference. If I know I'm going to choose A, I cannot choose B. I see no room for libertarian free will. To have libertarian free will is to have many possible choices that aren't completely constrained by external factors and having the knowledge of all of your conclusions is about as constraining as you can get.
So, what I have to show is that there are certain properties required by personal beings that cannot be exemplified timelessly. My argument is that personal beings have to be consciously self-aware, have a will, and be able to relate to temporal beings such as humans who dynamically change from one moment to the next. A being that was forever frozen in time with every emotional (or just one emotion) could not do that, and thus is not personal. Furthermore, it makes no logical sense to say a being is free to chose between alternatives if it already knows its decision because if you know your conclusion then no other alternative is possible.