See… you keep doing this; that’s why I’m so unwilling to use the imprecise terminology that you insist on using! sigh
OK: God was prior, but not prior in a temporal sense. So, if by “before”, you mean “before in time”, then NO… we do not agree.
But not a “point in time”.
No. Not true.
Agreed. #5 is correct; #4 is incorrect.
This is where you’ve put your blinders on, throughout the whole conversation! Every time someone says that there is change, you presume that they mean “a change that happened within the context of time”! THAT’S NOT WHAT WE’RE SAYING.
Fine, unless you mean “points in time”. If this is what you mean (and we both know that it is ), then your argument fails – it’s a circular argument! You’re using the conclusion of your argument (“time pre-exists creation”) as a premise in your argument (“points in time pre-exist creation”).
Sorry… that was your (unspoken, and therefore sloppy) premise. You cannot prove an assertion using the very assertion to prove itself.
Therefore, given the syllogism you’ve set up, #4 is false, which leads us (via #6) to conclude that #5 is true: time is created at the creation of the universe. (Thanks for providing the mechanism for demonstrating that your assertion is false. )