Its a relatively naive statement. What is 'before' and 'after' time is defining time in terms of time. While it does seem ridiculous to say something is 'before' time, it doesnt seem anywhere as ridiculous to say something is unrelated to time, beyond time, or independent from time.
The naivete is that a sophisticated philosopher would understand this, and at the very least not push forward a philosophical argument that really hinges on connotations of words instead of logical/philosophical pillars.
Anyways if the statement didnt have a famous philosophers name attached to it i doubt it would have gotten any response, its a pretty baseline/naive reaction to a complex scientific idea.
The naivete is that a sophisticated philosopher would understand this, and at the very least not push forward a philosophical argument that really hinges on connotations of words instead of logical/philosophical pillars.
Anyways if the statement didnt have a famous philosophers name attached to it i doubt it would have gotten any response, its a pretty baseline/naive reaction to a complex scientific idea.