A point of contention from the William Lane Craig vs. Jimmy Akin debate on the Kalam

In watching today's Kalam debate between Dr. Craig and Jimmy Akin, one of Akin's several thrusts against the Kalam (mostly theological arguments) seemed to strike hardest. Namely, that Akin maintained that God could theoretically create an actual infinite, and thus derive from it an infinite past. Akin's argument being that it is not a logical contradiction for God to create an actual infinite, and that God could have the ability to do so insofar as all things pre-exist in God. Dr. Craig responded that this would seem to entail a plurality existing in God contra Divine Simplicity, but Akin defended his position in pointing out that a multitude can still exist in God as a unity within itself. So far, it seems that Akin has the upper hand.

Contrary to this, Dr. Craig pointed out the absurdity of actual infinities, of course, pulling out the Hilbert's Hotel thought experiment as per the usual, and thus concluded that though it is not logically contradictory for God to create an actual infinite, it is still metaphysically contradictory in spite of the fact that all things pre-exist in God. If true, it would then seem that Akin's argument collapses.

So in an attempt for Akin to salvage his position, he thus maintained that God can do things which seem absurd from a human perspective, and that it is not metaphysically contradictory for God to create an actual infinite, illustrating the analogy that out of an infinite number of apples, one could take all the odd numbered apples from it and still derive an infinite amount of apples from it, and that this would not be metaphysically contradictory for God. Dr. Craig then responded in saying that this is still a metaphysical contradiction, and Akin disagreed.

I'm not sure what to make of this, as both sides seem very convincing, so it seems I am forced to withhold judgement. I would appreciate any clarifications and points in response.