They say she's in the class 18 stuck in her daydream

been this way since 18

Dr Craig we've interacted with some of the work of Jonathan M.

Pierce from time to time.

He's a blogger, an author, non-theist, and he talks about you and your view of A Theory of Time in this particular article that we're looking at.

He cites the work of Counterapologist, another non-theist blogger that's pretty popular.

They bring up here the A Theory of Time and he says that your case for A Theory is this.

Quoting, he needs time to be absolute and not relative as science appears

to predict and lead to.

This means that there must be something called a privileged reference frame, or similar

wording, that everything in the universe refers to.

However, science appears to prefer relativity such that time is relative depending on the

reference point.

If twins live on earth and one twin flies off at near the

speed of light and returns sometime later, the two clocks that the twins own and

keep on them will show different times.

There is no overarching time, which dictates both paradigms,

but individual and relative times for want of a better explanation.

Now I was puzzled when he said right off the bat that Craig needs time to be absolute. I thought what does he mean by this that I need time to

be absolute and I think the reason he thinks that he emerges later in the blog where he says,

Craig needs absolute time for the Kalam cosmological argument to work.

And I think what he's thinking of, in fact I feel certain about this

...