No, time is a measure of the passing of events (like the expansion of space)
Do objects move because time exists, or does time exist because objects move?

[Far out! errrr, take a hit and pass it around. I wanna hear side 2 of Dark Side of the Moon, man!]

Right an infinite amount in an infinite space. That means there could be infinity between the two parallels. With how limited we are in our space observation skills I think you might be jumping to conclusions.

"By definition, the universe is all that exists."
Then that would mean any God(s) that actually exist would be limited to working inside the confines of the universe.

I thought the same thing but didn't post it. :)

It is the same thing, noise, like time, is an irrelevant concept if no one is there to register it.

The existence of Man gives relevance to a great many concepts that, while they would exist, would have no meaning otherwise.

Are you saying the universe and existence are the same container?

we all currently live in a grain of sand on some Titan's beach where he is chilling with his girlfriend

If a tree falls and nothing is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

It may take many googles of years but existence could wait nearly forever (in human terms) while many attempts at creating viable life was occurring.

I disagree. Time is just a perception and condition. If there were no humans then time would not exist. Time can only be recognized by sentient beings. Without humans, or some other species, time wouldn't be.

Time has to be measured or recorded by someone for it to have any meaning at all.

I'm on my laptop writing my next novel. I can't look at this right now but will when I have a chance later.

Gotcha, I wasn't sure if we were assuming the universe was finite or not. So you're correct if the universe is infinite and that there is an infinite amount of matter in the universe then every permutation currently exists. But you also said that this can be shown to not be true, which is saying you can prove a negative without parameters. I've always thought that to be impossible so I'm curious how you can show that this isn't true.

I'll exaggerate this :

A man lives 200 years - a finite span.
Aside from recording his observations for other finite beings to learn from he cannot conceive existence without limit - at least I can't. The entire open ended concept of God is something I have trouble with. Using I AM as the foundation, there had to be, from my human finite perspective, a time when I WAS NOT. TO BE suggests there was a time where NOT TO BE was the condition.

Again, this is a finite argument placed against something infinite that human minds may not be able to mentally fathom. I'm honest enough to admit that I don't know everything and that not everything can be rational.

Why do you think this universe would have to be infinite? Let's say there were multiple universes but this one collapsed on itself, would existence still exist?

True.
My opinion: If all life was obliterated, existence would still exist and changes would still occur. "Time" would still progress although no life would exist to recognize it. Eventually, new "life" would be created.

I'm confused on two counts, if time were infinite every permutation would have already existed and exist again, which makes sense, but why would every permutation have to currently exist? Also if that's a premise, how can you prove it isn't true?

"If that were the case for the universe, then one must conclude that every possible permutation of existence has already existed, and currently exists."

In our experience of time, the past is the past, the future the future. Why would every possible permutation currently exist?