No. You did not “explain” anything to an AI model, certainly not in the sense of explaining something to another person. What you did was to shape your request to give the answer you desired.
As I already noted above, there is nothing new here. This is an argument philosophers have been making for thousands of years. It hasn’t reached any new conclusion, it’s simply repeating back a bit of the data it was trained on.
Try asking the AI if you are presenting a false dilemma.
Ridiculous. For that to work we have to have no evidence that mass, energy, forces, particles and the laws that govern them do not exist, but lots of evidence of ghosts and unicorns and angels and gods flying around doing stuff.
Please, at least try to be serious.
No, that is not how it works. If you insist on there being something other than the “natural”, you need to provide some sort of evidence for that claim. You don’t get to just cram the “supernatural” into whatever gaps in our scientific knowledge happen to exist at a given moment.
For that matter, you need to show that there actually is an “ultimate beginning” to the universe.
To be fair, any classical Christian theist who believes in the incarnation believes that it’s possible for the same person to exist both timelessly and temporally. When it comes to the question of whether God / the divine nature (since in WLC’s view “God” properly refers to the divine nature and not any person) can exist both timelessly and temporally, I think that runs into more problems. It would mean that the divine nature is not essentially timeless or temporal, and I don’t see how timelessness or temporality could be an accidental feature, even if you grant (as WLC does) that God has accidental features.