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

[SteveII]

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

And please explain why all that is needed for this premise is a causal principle rather than name dropping philosophical terms that can be used to magic into existence a non existent being through logic alone. That way .... <drum roll> we can examine your working and test each assumption rather than apply some off the shelf armchair philosophy to create an excuse to allow you to believe what the hell you like.

You condescension is unwarranted. You are attempting to debate way above your abilities. I don't mind helping you practice (and this goes for LFC too), but the attitude that you continue with makes you look worse than if you just asked/answered straight. Condescension speaks to character. 

To answer your question, it seems that a firm feature of reality is that being can only come from being. For every contingent condition there is an explanation for that condition. To undercut or defeat Premise (1) you need to deal with this in a logical manner--not just express your dissatisfaction with, or show your ignorance of terminology. 

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.

But this is precisely what the KCA does that you like so much

The KCA is an argument that applies to all reality. Not just our laws of physics that started a finite time ago. The way an argument works is that you have to show why the premises are wrong. You have done nothing of the sort. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.

Everything inside the universe begins to exist so everything outside the universe must also begin to exist. That's 2 / 3 of your argument right there. Why is it any different for a continuous version compared to a discrete version of the argument?

All you have done in your attempt to address this is describe that matter/energy change in states over time. The fact that we can follow all the states of matter/energy backwards to explain each state by examining the prior state supports  Premise (1). You think that because it is a process that somehow changes the concept. It does not. At all. The causal principle is alive an well. 

All the causes/effects processes that we can observe today can, with enough knowledge, be traced to the beginning of the universe. There, all the causes/effects come together and require just one cause. That is the point of this argument. What is the nature of this one cause. If you want to believe a multiverse exists, all that does is push it back but does not escape the argument. 

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. 

Agreed. So is it 4a, 4b or 4c for the environment of the universe?

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

You have logical problems with anything material "always existing". You cannot have a series of causes/effects going back forever because you can't complete an actual infinity of steps (which is what you have to have done to get up to the present). There would always be more steps on the front end of this chain of events that would have to happen. 

The KCA provides an argument for 4b. 

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.

Sorry. I forgot that you can't differentiate between reality and your armchair philosophy.

Metaphysics right. OK, that means imaginary physics which is undetectable and can only be discerned by mental masturbation.

If it's real then why shouldn't we be able to investigate it using the scientific method?

Sigh...I guess you prefer to keep stumbling along...with gusto...

Did it ever dawn on you that the scientific method is based in a philosophy of science?  Science actually presupposes philosophy. Read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

Believing that all of reality is subject to the scientific methods is silly nonsense long dismissed (which is exactly what your last sentence means). Read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

---

a. God is the best explanation why anything at all exists.
b. God is the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
c. God is the best explanation of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life.
d. God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness.
e. God is the best explanation of objective moral values and duties.

So how can your god be the best (or excellent) explanation if it is completely or partially unknowable?

You are wanting your cake and eat it. Is your god the best explanation or is it only partially unknowable?

You have set up a false dichotomy. It is not one of the other. There is no argument you could make to even suggest it.

---

---

He provided this list above:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribut...ristianity

Oh yes I'm aware of any list which may be produced, of his own making or others. But that's knowing about god in the same way as I know that  superman comes from krypton, and that he's as tough as steel, and he can fly, I don't actually take that knowledge and believe that superman actually exists.

Putting forward a known list of attributes, definitions and theology does not help us discern if we should take knowing about god seriously.  In other words how can we discern if those attributes are real or not ?

If the God of Christianity exists, then the Bible certainly contains information (no matter your position on inerrantcy) about God. You are confusing proving God with knowing his attributes if he does exist. They are not the same task.