RE: What is wrong with this premise?
January 18, 2015 at 3:44 pm
(This post was last modified: January 18, 2015 at 3:45 pm by Darkstar.)
(January 18, 2015 at 1:46 pm)Heywood Wrote:(January 18, 2015 at 5:09 am)Darkstar Wrote: 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?
If all that it takes to 'create' something is to reconfigure atoms, then not all 'creations' specifically have a cause (i.e. spontaneous reactions).
