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

[SteveII]

The KCA is an argument that applies to all reality. Not just our laws of physics that started a finite time ago.

OK let's recap here.

Your KCA argues that things begin to exist and everything has a cause.

I point out that things do not ever instantly begin to exist but gradually change over time. You ignore this point and talk about discrete causes instead. 

I rewrote your KCA as a continuous version rather than discrete.

You object to this by saying the continuous version fails because it makes assumption that the first two steps apply understanding of what happens inside the universe to what happens outside the universe.

You did not rewrite the KCA. You wrote another argument. Notice that you did not address the premises, show why they were wrong (a defeater) or why they might not be right (undercutting). 

I point out that the same argument applies to the discrete version that you think is correct.

You do not respond to that but instead continue making the assumption that there is more to the universe than matter and energy.

So tell me why the continuous version of the KCA is any less valid than the discrete version that you know and love.

Both versions assume that what happens inside the universe applies outside.

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

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

So answer without trying to logic meaningless concepts into existence and using nebulous words like 'being' which allow for equivocation. Tell me:

• a. Why assume that there is more to the universe than matter and energy?
  
• b. Why it is OK to argue things begin to exist in an instant in the real world when they never do?
  
• c. Why you can use this incorrect premise about how inside the universe works to argue how the outside works?
  
• d. Why you cannot use the correct premise that nothing begins in an instant inside the universe to argue how the outside works?

a. for this argument, I am not assuming there is more to the universe than energy and matter.
b. Why are you hung up on the word "instant"? It is not used in the argument.
c. I am talking about a principle of causation. It applies within the universe and it would apply to any other state prior to the universe. You keep getting bogged down in subjective descriptions of different states of matter.  Under your restrictive definitions nothing really begins to exist after the first moments of the universe. Fine. But you are making a distinction without a difference. In other words, I am talking about a concept of causation that, as far as we can tell, should apply to all of reality whether in this universe or not. 
d. If you address © this question resolves itself.

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

How do you know that you can't have an infinite number of steps? Isn't your whole belief system devoted to an idea of an eternity in Heaven or Hell?

Last thing first. Heaven/Hell are a potential infinity of moments. Not an actual infinity. You cannot get to an actual infinity by successive addition (by definition). 

Under any theory of time there is some sequence that is countable whether you call it causes/connection/light cones/changes in entropy/states of affairs/or whatever. I'll call it causal connections (but insert whatever you want).  Any timeline would show that the causal connections that created the present were preceded by causal connections which were preceded by causal connections for an infinite series in the prior-to direction. If you posit an infinite number of these causal connection going back, you have a problem. How could we have traversed through an infinite number of sequential causal connections to get to the one that caused the present (causal connection 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 0)? There will always have to be infinite more causal connections that still need to happen (on the front end). We will never arrive at the present.

To illustrate it with a thought experiment, imagine a being who is counting down from eternity past to the present: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, now. How is that possible? Wouldn't he have an infinite amount more numbers to get through to get down to 3, 2, 1? If you insist that this could be done, why didn't he get done 1000 years earlier or for that matter, an infinite time ago?

---

While some properties of God are unknowable, some are not. He has reveals a great deal about himself in both the OT and the NT. Here is a great list.  There is also a ton of things we can infer from known characteristics (the result of a process of systematic theology).

You’re wandering a bit.

The claim is that god is the personal creator of the universe as we know it.  If god is real, he is the best explanation for the universe’s existence.  

When examining a possible explanation for a particular phenomenon (in this case, god as the cause of the universe), most rational people would think it important to know a few key specifics about this proposed explanation:
 
1. What is god made of?
2. By what mechanisms did he accomplish this?
3. How can we differentiate between god, and things that are not god?
4. What mechanisms underpin this timeless, changeless, spaceless state?

Your answers to this line of questioning so far have been, ‘category error,’ and ‘not knowable’.  

That is some “explanation”, Steve.  Further, I don’t understand how you can call the definition of god as, “not needing an explanation”, any kind of definition at all.  God is what, then?   I’ll-defined by definition?  Why would any rational person accept a theory that is unexplainable by definition, as an explanation for real phenomena?

Our definition of God is incomplete. Given the subject matter, I would say that is to be expected. That you want to draw some conclusion about that is a misguided. You cannot develop any logical problems from this. Actually, not even an inconvenience to the Christian. 

You continue to ignore the fact that I have a list of real life reasons to think the concept is true.

What you have is your belief that the Bible is true, and personal experience.  If that’s enough for you, fine.  But you must be able to see how this is not even close to enough for many of us here.

”God-did-it because the Bible says so”, as the explanation for existence is never going to be enough for me.

God did it because we believe the people who testify to the events. The way you think it works is circular reasoning.