Time and existence

[steamer]

Does existence require time? My argument that it does requires the use of elements of time because all arguments use identity and identity requires existence and exisitence requires time. I have been accused of using circular logic because all arguments require a time element implied by existence.

The argument is as follows:

All things that exist, exist for some duration.
Atemporal existence does not exist for any duration.
Atemporal existence does not exist.

Simply said, Things must exist for a certain duration to qualify as existents.

[Superbug]

If you consider space as a 3 dimensional coordinate system (x, y, z) and time as the 4th dimension (t axis), the point (0, 0, 0, 0) exists at instant t = 0, but it doesn't exist for any duration.

[steamer]

If you consider space as a 3 dimensional coordinate system (x, y, z) and time as the 4th dimension (t axis), the point (0, 0, 0, 0) exists at instant t = 0, but it doesn't exist for any duration.
To exist, doesn't something have to exist between two points on the t axis? What does it mean to say something exists for zero time? Can't it be said that every thing that never existed, existed for zero time?

[Seasanctuary]

A square can exist without a third dimension, you just can't call it a cube.

[steamer]

A square can exist without a third dimension, you just can't call it a cube.
Even if a square could only exist as a mental entity it would still need to exist for some duration in order to be said to exist. True?

[Superbug]

If something existed only for an intant, it still exited.

[HRG_new]

If you consider space as a 3 dimensional coordinate system (x, y, z) and time as the 4th dimension (t axis), the point (0, 0, 0, 0) exists at instant t = 0, but it doesn't exist for any duration.

1) A "duration" can have zero length. Perhaps "at a point in time would be better.

2) I would not call a point in space-time a "thing". Things are: rocks, planets, electrons, okapis, leprechauns, gods .....

[steamer]

If something existed only for an intant, it still exited.
An instant has duration.

[steamer]

1) A "duration" can have zero length. Perhaps "at a point in time would be better.

2) I would not call a point in space-time a "thing". Things are: rocks, planets, electrons, okapis, leprechauns, gods .....
Points, lines etc. are mental entities. Points have no width, depth or height. Lines have no width. These only exist as mental entities. But if they exist for zero time can they really be said to have existed at all?

[steamer]

If something existed only for an intant, it still exited.
An instant, to me, implies having existed between two points on the t axis. Perhaps everything exists on just one point, but actual existents must exist between two points to be said to have existed.

[steamer]

1) A "duration" can have zero length. Perhaps "at a point in time would be better.
Duration of zero length would be non-duration, would it not? A thing that only exists for zero time cannot actually be said to exist can it?