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

[SteveII]

...it seems that a firm feature of reality is that being can only come from being.

Please explain what you mean by being coming from being and give an example. 

It is the inverse of the statement ex nihilo nihil fit (out of nothing, nothing comes) first argued by Parmenides. It has been refined into concepts like the Principle of Sufficient Reason (PSR):

The principle of sufficient reason states that everything must have a reason or a cause. The modern[1] formulation of the principle is usually attributed to Gottfried Leibniz,[2] although the idea was conceived of and utilized by various philosophers who preceded him, including Anaximander,[3] Parmenides, Archimedes,[4] Plato and Aristotle,[5] Cicero,[5] Avicenna,[6] Thomas Aquinas, and Spinoza.[7] Some philosophers have associated the principle of sufficient reason with "ex nihilo nihil fit".[8][9] Hamilton identified the laws of inference modus ponens with the "law of Sufficient Reason, or of Reason and Consequent" and modus tollens with its contrapositive expression.[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_...ent_reason

I'm aware that in quantum mechanics there is the concept of uncaused events and that existence essentially means collapse of the wave function, without which the being of something is indeterminate (see Bernard D'espagnat on Bell's inequalities, HERE), but neither of those appear related to what you are claiming.  There is, I believe, some support that new particles can appear out of nothing, but since that is ex nihilo, that would actually be a contradiction to your claim. 

"Uncaused events" may appear uncaused or actually be uncaused, but they are not from nothing. You have the energy from the quantum vacuum from which the particles form. 

Then there is the existence of virtual particles, but that again seems more like a refutation of your claim rather than a confirmation.  Aside from that, as far as I know, matter has never been observed to have been created or destroyed, so I am not aware of any example from reality in which matter literally came from matter unless that matter is just a reconfiguration of previously existing matter.  But that would make your phrase "being can only come from being" only true in the figurative or metaphorical sense, and if that is the sense in which you are interpreting statements such as "began to exist" then you seem to have some equivocation going on.  So what do you actually mean by being "coming from" being?

As you pointed out, within the universe, matter and energy does not just come into existence from nothing. So within our universe we have only ever observed that being comes from being or if you prefer the inverse, out of nothing, nothing comes. It is the opposite of figurative or metaphorical--it is actually true. The PSR is a universally accepted concept within our universe. 

How about prior to our universe? Cosmologist don't set aside the PSR in their theories. Why? Because we all believe it to be an objective aspect of reality that such a thing is true. If there were no such thing, it is not even clear if it is possible to know anything about such a state of affairs. 

Is it possible that it does not apply outside our universe. I suppose. But the KCA is an inductive argument where the conclusion is more likely to be true than not because its premises are more likely true than not. It does not need certainty to be successful.