Speed was not existent and unknown to humans in ancient times, but Moon has been moving for billions of years.
You are attaching all these unnecessary superficial labels on the points which are distracting you from progressing with the actual points in the discussion.
The main point here is how to prove “God exists.”
Again it sounds not substantial for being a meaningful premise. What is physical substances? What is substances?
Where does the universe start? Where does it end? Is the universe needed for the existence of God? Why or why not?
Not it isn’t. It’s your conclusion.
All you have done is say that t he universe had a beginning and this we call god.
This statement is incomplete - it is lacking a key word. Here is the correct statement:
There is currently no natural explanation why the universe exists now.
Our knowledge of the universe has grown exponentially over the last 400 some odd years, and yet there are still enormous gaps in our knowledge. Given the progress that science has made it is highly likely that much of our scientific knowledge will either be proven wrong and will be proven to be only partially correct - much as Newtonian physics is a subset of Einsteinian physics.
We cannot rule out the possibility that in 100 or 1000 years we will come up with a natural explanation.
Your logic fails on this simple error.
Ancient people had the excuse of not knowing how time enters into speed. We don’t!
For that, you need to accept that time exists; otherwise, I cannot help you.
But the fact is Moon has been moving for billions of years.
Why do you shackle yourself to speed which is not required for movment?
I am not denying time exists. I am saying time exists in different category of existence, not the way you think it does.
I was not asking for your help. I was just trying to clarify, and let you know the muddle you are in.
By substance, I mean something that exists and has a set of properties.
By physical substance, I mean a specific category of substances, such as a chair, an electron, etc.
So what is that in real terms? Why say substance instead of saying in definite names?
They are not the universe, are they? It is not meaningful to say chairs, and electrons exist. Therefore God exists. Is it? How do they relate to God?
No, that is C2. C3 is different from C2.
And now, you are putting words into my mouth.
It is complete.
I am not attacking all physical theories for the beginning of time. I am attacking different TYPES of theories of time. Time either has a definite beginning or it does not. There is no third option. Therefore, what I said is valid considering that I discarded both types of theories.
Ok. There’s not much point in continuing here. You can’t magic god into existence by a sequence of sentences.
Whatever moves, at least it has a speed. It can also have acceleration, etc.
I am talking about the physical time.
It only exists, because you think it does. You are keep associating it with movements for some reason.
Which is not relevant to the existence of God. The physical time is what is measured by the human invented instruments i.e. the watches and clocks.
I don’t understand what you are looking for.
Sure, they are.
I am not the figment of your perception!
I recommend that you read a book on mechanics.
It is related.
Have you wondered what would happen to your perception without psychological time?
I was asking what you mean by substance.
They are not.
It sounded like what you are claiming. These objects exist, so God exists. This doesn’t make sense at all.
I was talking from the real observational result, not from a book.
You need to explain that.
I never denied time is perception. I said your physical time is just readings from your clocks.
I already defined it.
Are you talking with yourself or me? The chair that you are sitting on does not exist… I am wondering if you are a solipsist!
I am not saying any of that. You are not making any sense.
You just said substances are chairs and electrons. Why not just say chairs and electrons, instead of substance? That was my question.
I never said chair doesn’t exist. I said why do you say chair is substance? Why do you say chairs exist, so God exists?
You brought chairs and electrons to the discussion suddenly. I never even thought about chairs and electrons. I asked what you mean by substance, which you replied it is chairs and electrons.
It is sometimes useful to read. It is useless to do what people have already done. You cannot understand things without a minimal appropriate study of things.
You need to accept that physical time exists first.
That is not a proper answer to the question I asked! What don’t you read the question I asked and wonder what it means?