Originally Posted by A p e x x

well here's where your fundamentals are already fucked up. lets take your house example.

to you, a house is just a combination of existing things. in reality, a house is made of
bricks
cement
tiles
plaster
wooden beams


now where did the bricks come from? they didn't just exist, they were made from other things like water (hydrogen and oxygen), special clays, synthetic bonders, they were baked in a kiln etc - aka, created. That brick was never there before till a process occured, and after the process was completed you have a brick. there fore it was created.

same for the cement and the tiles, same for the plaster, and the wooden beams which were once living parts of trees, which in it self was once a seed.


at the end of the day, after those key ingredients are put together, what you have is a house. whne those ingredients were seperate, you couldn't point to a hole in a clay pit and say "yup, rght there, that's a house" because it wasn't. it was just a pile of clay to be used to make bricks. and the same applies for the trees that became wooden beams, and the oven that bakes the bricks - neither of those you'd call a house either.

there fore all of that was created. none of it magically appeared out of thin air, someone had to commit to a process to put every bit of it there. aka....creation.

Originally Posted by Terumoto

Well then what you would consider and term creation, I would consider and term synthesis.

Originally Posted by A p e x x

but synthesis is still a process of creating. but i guess to you bricks are "synthesized"? ideas are "synthesized"? by definintion recombination of an existing think into a new thing is creating so once again i find my self asking "what is the logic of your position"?

Originally Posted by Terumoto

Yeah, by definition. What im trying to say is when something is created, another thing is destroyed... Nothing is really created or destroyed, they're just sort of mangled around a bit and used for a different thing.