If God exists outside of time then he cannot create anything at a certain time. If God created Big Bang then he did it at a specific time, this specific time (Big Bang) could have happened at any time in relation to God but if god is timeless then the Big Bang has never happened or it has always happened.

If God is outside of time then the moment the universe was created at that same moment the end was also created and everything in between. And how does this short time, billions of years, relate to a timeless God?

Another viewpoint: If God created Big Bang at a certain point it means that God made a choice, the choice was, to create it (obviously) . And choice means confusion, uncertainty, you cannot choose something 100% because that would no longer be a choice. This makes God human-like-minded and it indicates that God exists in time.

So:
1. God is timeless. which means He could not have created the Universe at a certain point which means that Universe existed (not necessarily this universe) always with God, which means Universe is also timeless.
2. God exists in time. Which means the Big Bang happened at a certain point. Which also raises the question who/what created God, for everything that exists in time was created and will be destroyed in time. That makes Him very human-like, as most people imagine Him, especially in the old days.

Because you never asked me whether you are ugly.

Isn't every morality subjective? I don't know where people get their objective morality from.

“When I was young I thought and I said to God, and in all my prayers this was the base: ‘Give me energy so that I can change the whole world.’ Everybody looked wrong to me. I was a revolutionary and I wanted to change the face of the earth.

“When I became a little more mature I started praying: ‘This seems to be too much. Life is going out of my hands–almost half of my life is gone and I have not changed a single person, and the whole world is too much.’ So I said to God, ‘My family will be enough. Let me change my family.’

“And when I became old,” says Bayazid, “I realized that even the family is too much, and who am I to change them? Then I realized that if I can change myself that will be enough, more than enough. I prayed to God, ‘Now I have come to the right point. At least allow me to do this: I would like to change myself.’

“God replied, ‘Now there is no time left. This you should have asked in the beginning. Then there was a possibility.´” -Bayazid

What you feel may be right but remember that you are a part of the world/people that you are describing, don't throw away your responsibility. LEAD BY EXAMPLE before complaining (even if what you complain about is true).

Oh yes one can easily build one that "seems" but whether it can fool judges Im not so sure. I guess it depends on the person that the AI is communicating to.

Religion tells us what we must and mustn't do in order to achieve happiness. Nietzsche says that there should be new values (new means authentic, not from outside sources) that do not frame life for us. When the old values are dropped, one has the clarity of insight and from that, right action comes and thus one lives in a natural order which means happiness.

A computer cannot be a philosopher or a psychologist, it can only appear to be one by coding it. Statement like "Columbus discovered America" are easy for AI to deal with since it is a matter of fact (whether correct or incorrect), the difficulty is dealing with opinions and viewpoints which is what philosophy centers on.

If you want to rely on the probability of what one might believe, I don't think it would in a serious discussion but it may work on a vague, superficial one. Though I wouldn't care much for a "mumbo jumbo" discussion.

Another way this might work is if the AI asks for a definition of each term (kind of annoying but ok).
Lets say a statement from the human has 3 important terms and the AI asks for definition, but then there needs to be a relation between those 3 terms in the AI system for it to give a somewhat acceptable response, but still better than just choosing random meaning for each term.

I don't know much about computing but this this seems to me a lot of work but still interesting.

Since philosophy is of the brain/mind, an AI may pretend to be a philosopher. On how to do it, go back to the basics. Philosophy is a collection of words with different meaning and definitions.
So in a philosophical discussion the computer must find which meaning and definition the human philosopher meant when a word is used. So take a philosophy statement, the computer must know all meanings and definitions of each word and then (somehow) detect which meaning of each word was the human philosopher considering in that statement. So its a lot of work just to give each individual word all possible meanings and then a hard work (perhaps impossible?) for the AI to find which of the meaning is the human philosopher choosing at that instant.

Yes, when I say selves Im talking about the periphery and not the cetral entity. But I wonder if the observation and understanding of the peripheral selves leads one to find that real deep self.