trial number one.

[none]

time exists?
now exists?
history exists?
god exists before history?

[Asmodean]

Point of this exists?

Time exists as a construct. I do not think it exists as something physical.

Now is a concept within time used to describe the moment or period of time immideately preceding present, THE present or immediately following present. So yes, now does exist.

History is our "Collective memory". It is used to describe the past and as a point of reference for the present (I am here today because I was born back then)

I do not believe in god(s) before or after history, so my answer here is no. Note that I'm not refering to god the concept used to explain everything unexplained but to god the sentient being)

[PipeBox]

1. From our point of view, yes.  Time as a dimension most certainly exists, but our interpretation of it may be limited or flawed.  But speaking generically, yes.
2. From our perspective, yes.  Technically, no.  There is no slice of time to define as "now," there is only what has happened.  What we call "now" is a shoddy approximation left lacking by our delayed sensory interpretation, and the different processing rates in different parts of the brain.  Not all information in any one sensory snapshot can be processed all at once.  Obviously, your brain is interpreting signals it got from your ears before it's even forwarded to your consciousness and enters the realm of awareness.   These processes aren't entirely separate, but the key thing to realize is that they aren't instant.  Your perception of "now," is an amalgam of the very-near past.
3.  History is the one thing on this list you can be more certain of than any other.  Unless we were created as is right now, or all perception is horrendously flawed, history is a certainty.  Heck, even if we were created a picosecond ago, we still have a whole picosecond of history.
4.  I guess that depends on whether time is an emergent property, or dimension universal to all reality.  It can certainly be altered based on the contents of a universe, if observed from a different frame of reference, but it always appears to be passing at the same speed to those in the same frame of reference.  If it's universal, God would kind of get the hose.  I mean, sure, you can claim he created the multiverse or that he created time or whatever, always setting him one step before, but if we don't need him to, I mean with certainty, then that'll be a huge blow to God-of-the-Gaps theists.  Now, as to how the hell God would perform a causal action without time, uhh . . .  ya got me.  Creating something has to be done before it exists.  "Before" sets a timeline.  Timelines need functioning time.  Christians could start saying that their God didn't cause the universe, but will shortly, if they want to really give us a headache.   The only "history" God might exist before is human, or written, or ant.  To suggest he is wholly external to time and causality creates a cluster fulcrum (oh yeah, it's about as likely a simple lever with more than one fulcrum, so that statement stands).

And now I'll go disappear again.  Sorry I've been so quiet everyone, I'll return in force sooner or later.

[Kyuuketsuki]

time exists?
now exists?
history exists?
god exists before history?

Baffled exists?

Kyu

[wheels5894]

I am not so much baffled and unable to make a connection from the first 3 statements to the last. The first three do not mention god or a creator and yet god 'pops up' in the last. I think Occam would have something to say about that.

As for time, well whether it is part of the fabric of 'time - space' or not, we humans cannot manage without it and the various god myths cannot either. Mind, having god eternal is a good start as it gets over a few problems. I am not sure the 'eternally' bit helps much, though as we know of nothing that does not have a starting point somewhere and surely god would need that too.

[Zarathustra]

Point of this exists?

 I'm not even taking that further.
But I take the liberty to comment on you instead Asmo:

Time exists as a construct. I do not think it exists as something physical.

Now is a concept within time used to describe the moment or period of time immideately preceding present, THE present or immediately following present. So yes, now does exist.

This is one of my particular areas of interest: Philosophy of time.

That it doesn't exist as something physical has been disproved. - Mainly when experimenting with the relativitytheory and atomic watches.

But we still can't define it's ontology correct and therefore we are still unable to (really) experiment with it.
As when you write that "now" exists. Actually "now" has a tendency towards non-existence (soon the now you were speaking of, is no longer... actually it isn't even existing when you are finished saying "now".) The past exists only as memories and history. The future only as our expectations.

Of course this is bordering on making no sense, which is why it is such an interesting field.

[none]

just like I don't understand john 3:16, others will not understand the first post in this thread...
god is a construct.
eternity or eternal is a deceptive way of saying time without begining or end, and denying time's existence.
also since everything had a begining, what was before?
nothing?
did nothing have a begining?
and before nothing?
pre-nothing?
and before pre-nothing?
I just stumbled across this line of thinking a few years ago and am still trying to reconcile it.
maybe before pre-nothing a pre-nothing eternity, without time of course, but for how long?
since history exists when does it end?
does duration end?
thanks for the responses.

[Zarathustra]

god is a construct.

Yes

eternity or eternal is a deceptive way of saying time without begining or end, and denying time's existence.

What is deceptive about it? It certainly does not deny time's existence, it simply claim that time is infinite.

also since everything had a begining, what was before?

Strange question. That everything had a beginning is just an assumption.

since history exists when does it end?

Now.

does duration end?

yes it is implied in the definition of the word.

thanks for the responses.

You are welcome.

[none]

my question "also since everything had a begining, what was before? " was a refrence to an earlier post where I may have misread the belief in everything having a begining.
I don't believe the begining of some or all as put forth by some creation idea.

[Wechtlein Uns]

I'm so glad I've found answers to the fundamental questions about time that satisfy me. Makes me that much more productive.  

[none]

Wechtlein Uns, thank you for the response.
After reading your post I remebered something I had read in a quantum physics book years ago, Wave-Particle duality.
From what I remeber says you can't know the all the properties of an observable at any given instance.
Something similar to: you might know where the observable's location is but not from which direction it came and conversely you may know the direction but not location (this ratio changes, but does not cease to exist) as the quanta or quantity of the observable changes.
About the big bang, I read it as a particle of infinite density and mass existed then boom.
From the claim that there was a particle of infinite density and inifinite mass that existed and time and space are inifinite comes a paradox, how can we quantify the density and mass of the particle if we can calculate its location or time of existence while using wave-particle duality?
I can't thus the concept of inifinite density and mass at a specific time.
does this particle of infinite density and infinite mass still exist?

[Messenger]

time exists?

Yes, but we don't understand completely what is it!

now exists?

No, now is just a point of time, what exists is our actions as a state of time (Now)
So, nothing is added by this statement, it is the same like the previous

history exists?

Same as before Event(t)

god exists before history?

Maybe, can you prove it?

[Zarathustra]

Wave-Particle duality.
 how can we quantify the density and mass of the particle if we can calculate its location or time of existence while using wave-particle duality?
I can't thus the concept of inifinite density and mass at a specific time.

Problem is: No one ever claimed that the big-bang particle was a wave-particle. So quantum mechanics does not really apply to that. Anyway QM is a way of describing actual paticles and their behaviour. This original particle you refer to, is just a hypothesis. And generally recognized as one.

does this particle of infinite density and infinite mass still exist?

if it is a true description of how things started, I guess not since it has spent the last 15-20 billion years evolving into something completely different. It is just one explanatory model among others though.

[none]

ok, Messenger, the logic of now not existing eludes me, if that is what you said.
please clarify.
I propose : before history there was history, but not god; god is not independent of belief or believed.

About the big bang particle, that is the whole issue with wave-particle duality; wave-particle duality always exists.
I will reiterate, since the particle existed at a specific time its density and mass were were known as infinite (mainly because it had no direction; no refrence to duration i.e. time)
I could be mistaken as I fumble along without the benefit of structured higher education in this field of thought.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Well, zarathustra, why not claim the universe existed as a cloud when it was as small as, say, an electron?