RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 18, 2015 at 1:46 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 1:52 pm by Heywood.)
(January 18, 2015 at 5:55 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 3:43 am)Heywood Wrote: Premise: Everything that has come into existence has had a cause.
What is wrong with the above premise?
What you're about to do with it.
Boru
I don't plan on doing anything with it. I'm just curious why some atheists think this is a faulty premise. To me it seems intuitively true.
(January 18, 2015 at 5:09 am)Darkstar Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 4:58 am)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: 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?"
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)?
Your claim is the movie is just a new configuration or arrangement of pre-existing stuff. Fine and good.....but isn't the configuration itself a new thing that previously didn't exist?
