Is There a Need to Press the Second Argument?

The first argument craig offers for the finitude of the past is the impossibility of the actual infinite. The second one gives me a bit more trouble when i think about it more, but it's wit. Similar to lots of craig's arguments have this same structure. I'm very confident of the i'm pretty confident of the first premise. You agree that that's essentially the argument, the actual infinite argument. Actual infinites can't exist. Beginning less past is an actual infinite, therefore beginning is past can't exist and so on.