Premise (I) is false. Things can come into existence with a different set of parts.

Most Christians take the third commandment to have something to do with how you use idiomatic expressions like "Oh my God" or "for God's sake" in your daily speech, but there is absolutely nothing in the Bible that says that this is a sin. In fact, Jacob said something very similar to our "Oh my God" in the original Hebrew when he met his brother Esau and said that he had the "face of God" (Genesis 33:10), and there's nothing indicating that he was rebuked by God for doing so. The third commandment has to do with how you invoke God's name in oaths, and the only time it is dealt with in the New Testament is when Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for how they developed elaborate rules for what constitutes as "swearing" and a "binding oath" to God.

"Matthew 23:16-22" wrote:

"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the templeis bound by that oath.' You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, 'If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.' You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it."

Much like "breaking the Sabbath," it's not really a sin that a Christian can commit today. (And again, the only time that commandment was dealt with in the New Testament was when the Pharisees were making elaborate rules on what constituted "working" on the Sabbath.)

I came here because somebody from Dr. Feser's blog referred me here.

I am a graduate student of Mathematics at DePaul University in Chicago who has slowly come to realize that the education system of the USA has sought out to not teach children how to reason on purpose.

KevinScharp wrote:

The problem is that armchair reasoning about causation is completely unreliable because cause and effect are two very old and imprecise concepts. 

The concept of causation is old indeed, but it is not at all imprecise. The Kramers–Kronig relations imply that in physical systems causality is logically equivalent to stating the analyticity of response functions in the closed upper half plane.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kramers%E2%80%93Kronig_relations

KevinScharp wrote:

Trying to uncritically use the concepts of cause and effect in the context of general relativity and quantum field theory would be like if Aristotle were transported to a contemporary chemistry conference and complained that fire isn’t on the periodic table.  “Don’t you believe in fire?” “Yes, we do, but we just don’t think it’s fundamental any more.”

This flies in the face of modern philosophy of science. Let me put it to you like this: if causality could be "reduced" to something more fundamental, then we no longer need to replicate scientific experiments, as we could simply build equipment that detects the "particles of causality" and prove induction right then and there.

KevinScharp wrote:

Causation is not a conceptual tool of advanced scientific theories.

Except that it absolutely is a tool of advanced scientific theories. This statement is flat out false. The opposite of truth.

KevinScharp wrote:

For example, in the statement of Quantum Mechanics, the word ‘cause’ doesn't appear at all, nor does it in the statement of general relativity.

However, the Kramers–Kronig relations do appear in quantum mechanics when it comes to determining the properties of any linear response function, such as that of an photon, and can even be used to calculate optical properties such as the absorption coefficient and permittivity.

KevinScharp wrote:

General relativity works the same way by applying tensor fields—a kind of mathem

…