Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

I agree that makes no sense, but I don't think that's an accurate representation. Time doesn't begin to exist, it's abstract. It's our tool.

We started measuring what we call time at a certain point. How can you claim to know how time worked before the plank time when all of science doesn't? How can you possibly know it doesn't continue back infinitely far, or go in a circle? You're just describing it in a weird way, which then doesn't make sense to you, or to me.

I don't agree with how you describe it. But maybe we've hit a wall here. Either way, your model cannot work without special pleading. If your creator can have always been there, then the universe can have always been there. You're simply moving the question back one layer, and then demanding your creator not be subject to the same problems.

EDIT: I think I've identified how this "creator" does not solve the apparent paradox, which I don't agree is there anyway, but instead just adds one more layer to be explained.

Can anyone else help us break this barrier of understanding regarding an infinite past and MK's way of describing time? I just don't get what he means.