What is wrong with this premise?

[reiemdis]

How do we know that these particles are not caused by existence, I.e. their cresttion is inherent within the physical laws of existence.

I would sooner believe that the cause is non-local rather than they come into existence un-caused.

Non-local?

[Cyberman]

God.

[reiemdis]

Oh that non local one.

[Mudhammam]

A Harry Potter movie has come into existence.

The movie didn't exist 100 years ago and now it does.

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?"

[Heywood]

God.

Not necessarily.

I don't find the notion that we live in a computer simulation to be unreasonable. The decay of an atom or the popping into existence of a virtual particle would be caused by a random number generator. To use it would appear to be uncaused because the cause is not local to us.

[reiemdis]

Fair enough.

[Darkstar]

A Harry Potter movie has come into existence.

The movie didn't exist 100 years ago and now it does.

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)?

[reiemdis]

Fair enough.

[robvalue]

Dawkins did it.

[Mudhammam]

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)?

I'm not so sure I'd agree. Are the elemental forces causes or are they rather the pretexts by which causes and effects are made to occur? Did gravity cause the egg to break or was it rather my knocking it from its secure location, for example, that caused it to fall and break? If you had removed my clumsy elbow, the egg would remain intact, and gravity would still be present, so I think it's incorrect to apply cause-effect to the forces themselves as these are rather merely the presupposed conditions within which causes and effects occur. Then again, if all can be reduced to these forces, I suppose they do facilitate the changes and then in some sense EVERYTHING can be attributed to gravity or something of another.