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

[SteveII]

I don't like the Wikipedia formulation. Here is the one I use:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

and what must that cause be like:

4. To stop an infinite regress of causes, the cause of the universe (or it's predecessor) is an "uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful." (from your quote above)

Let's rewrite this argument without the simplistic everyday words that assumes that the universe is made up of discrete states that instantaneously switch from one to another. Let's rewrite it in a way that acknowledges that the universe is made up of many persistent patterns of matter and energy that change gradually over time.

1. Every stable pattern of matter and energy in the universe first had to develop over time (continuous version of begins to exist) and this happened because of how it was shaped by a larger environment (continuous version of cause).

First, like I said before, all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle.

Second, your rewriting significantly reduces the scope of the premise by making it about things inside the universe. This makes it useless to talk about things outside the universe. I will bring this back up below.

2. The universe itself first had to develop over time.

Nope. There is no such thing as a partial universe, partial spacetime or even a partial singularity. There are only two choices: the universe came into being or the universe always was. 

3. Therefore the universe itself is part of a larger environment shaping it.

Does not follow from (1) or (2). You shifted from "in the universe" in (1) and now in (3) you talk about the "universe itself..in a larger environment". Depending on your underlying reasoning, this is either a composition fallacy or just bad logic. Since (3) is not a valid conclusion, the rest of your argument falls completely apart. 

4. To stop an infinite extension of the universe, this larger environment of the universe is an environment that either:

4a: came about in an instant
4b: has always existed unchanging
4c: has always existed but continually changes.

4a and 4b does not explain how this larger environment the universe exists in came about. It just poses more questions that we cannot answer.
4c on the other hand means that there doesn't need to be a larger environment that the universe exists in.

This shows that the Kalam Cosmological argument only works because it uses simplistic every day language to gloss over the specific details. It only convinces you if you think about the problem simplistically. It gives the illusion of providing an explanation but only if you refuse to ask any more questions. This is why christians argue that after a while you need to stop asking questions and just have faith. If you have the right answer, you don't need faith, you can continue asking more questions, testing your answers and refining your understanding. This is how the scientific process works.

And that very last sentence is your problem. This is not a question of science. It is a metaphysical question. Now we can use science in support of or to undercut a premise, but this is not a science problem. You have got to learn the difference as well as learn the limitations of science or you will keep stumbling on this stuff.