Disproving Odin - An Experiment in arguing with a theist with Theist logic

[SteveII]

Now give me examples of things that don't have causes. 

Lest you think you can play around, let's use the same definition of the word:

cause
kôz/
noun

1. 1.
   a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
   

No. Let's not use that definition. Because my entire point is that using the word 'cause' in the KCA is equivocation and conflation. The word is meant to be used as short hand to communicate information quickly. Fine in every day language if I am going to say "Sorry, I caused that explosion", but not precise enough to hang an entire belief system on.

This is because reality is not broken down into discrete events. It is a continuous changing process made up of a myriad of smaller continuous processes. Using the short hand term of 'cause' that is useful for our every day lives when talking about how the universe we currently see came about is conflation and takes the word out of scope.

So let's see the KCA re-written without the use of the word 'cause' in a way that acknowledges that the universe continually changes.

And if you did that then it still wouldn't help because I can even make the same argument for the word 'thing'. When does a thing begin and a thing end?

You are confusing the difficulty in describing a causal chain (and where to stop) with x, y, or z item with a Causal Principle. The fact is that with enough knowledge, you could describe the causal chain for a billion years BECAUSE you believe in a Causal Principle.  The entire enterprise of science is founded on there being a Causal Principle. We rewind history to come up with cosmology models by using a Causal Principle. 

All I need for the argument is there to be a Causal Principle. Are you going to deny there is such a thing?