God is timeless

[FreeTony]

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.

How do you know time has a cause?

How can you use the word simultaneous, meaning at the same time, when time at that point time does not exist? (Even I am making assumptions about time here)

You go from possible to must with no explanation.

As my previous post, these discussions involving "before the big bang" become meaningless as we don't have the understanding to really make any statements at all. Again we need science.

---

I think you missed the point of WLC's points. it wasn't to deduce a single answer, but explore a range of possibilities. what does it mean for God to be timeless? is this possible with A and or B theory of time? he answered the range of possibilities, gave what he thought was the most likely answer. you are correct in saying philosophy can't deduce certain observations we would expect from either theory of time, though if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct (which they most likely are) B theory of time seems to be the best theory of time. anyways, whether God is separate from time and time is merely a static object to him or he created time while also becoming dynamic in it remains unknown. the point is there are possible answers out there no matter what theory of time you subscribe to.

I may have read something slightly different, but to be honest as soon as people talk about maybe's and untestable things then I switch off as I see it as pointless. Pontificating on something you can't physically demonstrate actually exists is a bit silly really.

Throughout the history of science when people have assumed things to be correct, many times they have been shown to be completely wrong. There could well be a C theory* of time that explains observations better than these two.

*These should all technically be hypotheses, otherwise you end up with "evolution is only a theory" nutters coming after you.

You do get points for at least trying to be rational, compared with some of your compatriots. Total respect to you if you can answer the question "How can I test whether something is timeless"