I didn't expect you to see [that time cannot exist apart from the universe]. In fact, I'm not convinced you yet do..
You're not convinced I see this, because you think the existance of a supernatural creator forces the existance of a time before time. I do see this though, because I define "supernatural" correctly. Supernatural means to exist outside of nature, which means outside of existance itself. Supernatural, correctly defined, cannot be subsumed into the definitions of "natural" or "universe" (which are synonyms, as you pointed out). A supernatural creator exists apart from existance, apart from time, and apart from logic.
The obvious criticism is that according to such a definition, supernatural is a logical contradiction on its face, which it is. Holding to this definition appears at first blush to be abandoning the idea of rationality. But in fact, it is only by defining supernatural this way that the rationality of the universe may be upheld. By shifting the ability to defy logic onto a supernatural creator, and away from the universe, you end up with a logically incomprehensible creator, but you gain a logically comprehensible universe. This is good, because we live in the universe, and our survival and sanity depend on the universe being subject to logic.
If you see this position as flawed, then consider the alternatives. You can introduce the idea of infinity into the universe -- i.e. the universe has existed for an infinite amount of time -- in order to circumvent the need for a supernatural creator, but then you end up with a universe that contains the rationally imcomprehensible concept of infinite time (I think the eternally-existing-other-dimensions theories are basically spinoffs of this). Or you can place the potentiality of the universe's uncaused existance within the natural universe -- which is what you do if you accept a finite "all time" but reject a supernatural creator -- but then you have a natural universe that contains another clear logical impossibility. You're really just shuffling around a set of related absurdities.
The elephant in the living room is the impossible coexistance of three obvious facts: (1) the universe exists, (2) the universe has existed for a finite span of time, (3) something can't come from nothing. If you accept these three facts, and your definition of the universe is "all that exists, time included", then you have accepted a logical impossibility. You can either try to hide this logical impossibility by sweeping it under a rug somewhere, or you can put it in its proper place. I prefer to take it outside of the natural universe, since I have to live here, and place it instead within the unknowable, incomprehensible thing that is the supernatural creator. I am satisfied with the resulting situation -- a rational universe with a transcendant creator.
Anyway, that's the way I see this existance thing right now. If you've got a way of explaing how the universe can exist and be rational without the existance of a supernatural creator, I'd be very interested in hearing it. My guess is that a quick walk-through of whatever you propose will reveal an elephant stashed under an end table somewhere.
I said:
I don't think that the fact of existance proves that the creator is willful or thinking
To which you replied:
Perhaps presumptuous on my part, but you are a strange deist indeed if you think the creator is some mundane physical force without a will.
I continued:
The existance argument cracks open the door to the possibility of a God with those qualities, but it certainly doesn't provide the proof.
I think God is willfull and is far more than a mundane force, but the fact of existance doesn't provide the proof for anything beyond God's existance. There are other arguments that help flesh out God's personality.
Well, you have conveniently isolated yourself from any argument by accepting the truth of absurdities. It allows you to choose which absurdities you want to believe, and for some motive you chose the one you have. As a matter of fact, if it is a contradiction, then it is false. You therefore are, of course, wrong, but there is no way of convincing you of this because you don't accept any of the legitimate rules of persuasion.
Despite your own delusions, you have not reduced the existence of the universe to the need to select between logical absurdities. I thought we had established this on past posts and I won't rehash it all here. All you have succeeded in doing is proving, logically, that you are wrong.
I'm sad that the discussion must end here, but I am wasting my time, as would anyone, trying to argue with someone who believes that a statement can be both true and false at the same time. Have fun chasing your windmills.