RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 18, 2015 at 5:09 am
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 5:09 am by Darkstar.)
(January 18, 2015 at 4:58 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 4:21 am)Heywood Wrote: A Harry Potter movie has come into existence.The movie as it presently exists didn't---but all the materials that resulted in it did. So nothing that is currently identified as "the Harry Potter movie" came into existence when the conglomeration that is identified as such did, and so your question is not "Did something that did not exist in any form come into existence and therefore require a cause?" but "Did something that did exist in one form or another change into a new form called the 'Harry Potter movie ' and therefore require a cause?"
The movie didn't exist 100 years ago and now it does.
This. Your example is not of something coming into existence, but of other things, which already existed, being rearranged into something else. Even if we used this definition, I'm not sure that you would get anywhere with it. After all, the physical laws can be considered causes. If an egg falls due to gravity did the newly 'created' brokeneggspilledonthefloor have a cause (i.e. gravity)?
