Does time really exist?

Nothing can go from not existing to existing,

I exist now but didn't in the 19th century, therefore there was a time when I didn't exist, and from not existing came to exist. In short, I went from not existing to existing.

There was a time when U. did not exist, does not imply that there was a time when a non-existent U. existed. The proposition that, U. did not exist at T1 does not imply U existed at T1. That is one thing you may rely on, since it is false that p implies ~p is a logical truth.

I didn't exist, now I exist, which is to say that I went from nonexistence, the state of the world in which nothing was me, to existing, the state of the world in which something is me. Conversely, dinosaurs went from existence to nonexistence, as dinosaurs are extinct, which is to say that they no longer exist. Are you claiming that dinosaurs exist?

Now, you know that I am not claiming that dinosaurs are now living, if that is what you are asking. If you are asking whether the proposition that something is a dinosaur in X b c. the answer is yes. It seems to me that you should distinguish between there are Y's, and Y's are alive. The trouble is that in the case of living things, the term, "exists" (or better, "there are") tends to suggest being alive.

Does this add up to a claim that dinosaurs exist, or not?

The claim that the statement that dinosaurs exist in the X b.c. is true, if that is what the claim that dinosaurs exist means.

if the claim that dinosaurs are alive in the year 2010 is meant, then that claim is false.

As far I can tell birds are dinosaurs.

even if they were dead, given once they existed as being alive, they will always exist from that time on...they refer and can be referred, simple !

Obviously that's not what the claim means, because dinosaurs are extinct, and if you look in a dictionary you'll find that extinct means no longer in existence.There is nothing in the world, or at least on Earth, which is a dinosaur, is there? Therefore dinosaurs do not exist. So, dinosaurs have gone from existence to nonexistence, and the converse constantly occurs, things come into existence, from nonexistence.

there is nothing in the world in X b.c. that is a dinosaur, since that would not be true

Your grammar isn't english, one hundred million years before present, there were things in the world which were dinosaurs. It's not the case that there are dinosaurs in the past, the construction is grammatically nonsensical. So it's not the case that dinosaurs exist, however you cut it, it's the case that dinosaurs existed. There was a period when there were dinosaurs, which is to say that dinosaurs existed, before and after this period there were and are no dinosaurs, so dinosaurs came into and went out of existence. Their status changed from nonexistent to existing and back to nonexistent.

Your grammar isn't english, one hundred million years before present, there were things in the world which were dinosaurs. It's not the case that there are dinosaurs in the past, the construction is grammatically nonsensical. So it's not the case that dinosaurs exist, however you cut it, it's the case that dinosaurs existed. There was a period when there were dinosaurs, which is to say that dinosaurs existed, before and after this period there were and are no dinosaurs, so dinosaurs came into and went out of existence. Their status changed from nonexistent to existing and back to nonexistent.

On this account, dinosaurs exist. They don't exist NOW, but they exist when they exist, in the past (relative to us) which itself exists.

The verb "to be" is being used tenselessly as it is in the statement that 2 + 2 are 4 . And that is English.

No doubt an eternalist thinks that you exist as a baby, but it's quite clear that you are not a baby, otherwise you would be unable to post to this board. I guess the eternalist also contends that you're not alive, almost completely, as the portion of time during which you are alive is a negligible fraction of the total, if there is one.

No doubt an eternalist thinks that you exist as a baby, but it's quite clear that you are not a baby, otherwise you would be unable to post to this board. I guess the eternalist also contends that you're not alive, almost completely, as the portion of time during which you are alive is a negligible fraction of the total, if there is one.

I guess the eternalist also contends that you're not alive, almost completely, as the portion of time during which you are alive is a negligible fraction of the total, if there is one.

That's right. The eternalist picture is that the universe is just an existing block of spacetime. All locations in past, present and future exist, just as all locations in space exist. For an incredibly tiny portion of that existent whole my world line exists embedded in block space time, its temporal boundaries my birth and death.

I have baby parts, adolescent parts, adult parts, old age parts, etc.

That is why the sentence "X exists" or "X is alive" does not have a truth value.

Are you a baby?
.
.
.
.
.