[papertyger]

You ASSUME creation is the start of time, then cite creation as proof God is outside of time.

That's my point about not understanding what you read: it's not an assumption, it's a fact. God could not have called something out of nothing if mass predated creation. Without mass, there is no time, and that is an irreduccable fact that is understood by its definition.

[Mr Rogers]

“Without mass, there is no time, and that is an irreduccable fact that is understood by its definition.”

No, it isn’t. It is your assumption.

[Mad Dawg]

I dispute Mass as a prerequisite. All you need, I think, is something that changes. The minute (so to speak) you have that, you have time.

If you come from a tradition which doesn't "do" philosophy and that sort of thing, it's not a quick nor an easy sale. To me, it's a given, because, intellectually at least, I was a philosopher before I was a committed Xtian, that God never changes. But I can see how if one doesn't have a background if thinking like that, might not agree.

"Making sense" itself is a phrase open to different understandings. And back me into a corner over how a thing can change and yet be what it is ... well, I start stammering. And then the non-philosophers can ask, "Isn't philosophy just a matter of filling the space between here and speechlessness with a lot of noise?"