No, but...
Your first problem here is that several of your examples are not an object that exists. They're processes, not objects. Your second problem is that you're grouping things together which do not necessarily belong together.
For objects, we can inspect them with various degrees of accuracy, and determine their state with whatever level of accuracy the measurement method allows.
Processes are a bit different though. Processes are a description of the behaviour of an object and how it interacts with other objects. You have to watch how an object behaves, and then try to fit some kind of model to it which will predict the object's behaviour in future. There isn't any requirement to think up a reason for why this happens, at least initially. The first requirement is simply to find a model which fits past and future measurements. After that, you can start trying to fit explanations to that model.
What tends to happen is that we find classical models are generally good enough for most purposes. It's only when we dig into the more obscure corners that things break down. All your examples are top-level classical concepts. They all break down in various details, so we can't in any way say they're "true", because we know ways in which they aren't - but at the top level they're just good enough for day-to-day use if you don't look too closely.
"Free will" is a great example. You can hypothesize all you like about quantum states in the brain, and whether we're truly deterministic creatures. But even at the macro level, magicians can "force" choices (or what feels like choices) from participants which actually are predetermined by the magician; or advertising and social pressure can prime us to buy things we might not otherwise "want"; or social pressure (and the fear of retribution) can force us to do things we would not want to do. These methods of hacking our perceptions of free will are so well understood that there are literally books about how to do it. Free will is a "good enough" model of how people behave on their own; but the exceptions also need to be considered when modelling how groups of people behave together.
Time is another interesting one. For classical purposes, time is fixed. But as you get faster and faster, the difference becomes significant. This isn't just abstract theory - it's essential if you want your GPS satellites to get you the right position.
God is the exception here. It looks like an object - but in fact it's a place to group together all those processes we don't (or didn't) understand. God has been (and still is) used as the reason people die of diseases, or why lightning strikes buildings, or avalanches or extreme weather or earthquakes or tsunamis happen. As science has advanced, the "god of the gaps" principle has taken all these processes away from a hypothetical god, because the idea that they're caused by (a) god doesn't actually give us a useful way to predict and mitigate them. Sacrificing doves isn't a great medical intervention, and it doesn't stop lightning strikes!
Of course a god or gods can also give us the idea that there's a life after death, which these days is their primary role. Is that real, or is it merely the process of a group of people inventing a comforting fiction in a world where they don't understand all the things which can apparently kill them for no reason? There's no evidence either way. And still, this is always (a) god as the representative of the process of dying, not as an entity in its own right. We know dying happens as a process, and religion is a way you can model it in a way that results in you feeling better about it. That's not necessarily a bad outcome, so long as it doesn't go further than that.
