God is timeless

[Rational AKD]

I can't fathom why it is logically impossible to destroy a space-time container and not expect time (the one on that container) to go on flowing...

ouch... too many double and triple-negatives in there... let me try to rephrase that...

Why should we expect to observe the flow of time once the space-time container is destroyed? Why is it logical that time goes on flowing once it is destroyed?

what you said first and what you rephrased aren't the same. you first asked why should time cease if space-time is destroyed, then rephrased to why does time continue once it's destroyed. maybe you should clarify what you say before you say it so I can properly address it.

I wouldn't say it's ridiculous... It just doesn't make sense.
The act of creation would have to be done in the absence of space and time. So the creation cannot be before anything else... nor after... these qualities don't make sense.

I think you're a little confused here. the creation of time could be said to be before all events in time, it just could not be said the creation of time happened before time was created. later events can still occur after the first event, but no events could occur prior.

WUT?!

let my try and break it down in steps.
P1: a chandelier hung by the ceiling is that which the ceiling caused the chandelier to be hung.
P2: the ceiling could not have supported the chandelier before the chandelier was hung, but must have supported it at the exact moment it was hung.
C1: simultaneous causations are possible.
P3: time has a cause.
C2: the cause of time must have a simultaneous causational relationship with time.

this shows how it is possible for God to create time without the need for it in the first place.

You're careless in your language and it shows... "creating time before time"... what does that 'before' means?!

you do realize when I said "creating time before time" it was presented as a logical absurdity, not as a possible explanation right?

---

The scientific method creates an hypothesis based on the evidence for the subject at hand. You have presented nothing.

nor was that my goal. as I stated, i'm here to answer the OP's question, not to go off topic.

Then I think you get my point: many rational atheists see no more value in the philosophical musings on the properties of a 'non-existent' deity than they do on bigfoot. It's like the question "What's the smell of blue?"; essentially nonsensical.

well sorry I can't answer one atheist's question well appeasing the numerous questions of other atheists simultaneously... except I honestly don't care. if they don't accept that presumption, fine. the answer isn't for them it's for the OP, so they can amuse themselves elsewhere.