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

[Jenny A]

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)

This avoids a misunderstanding of the argument and also eliminates parody attempts like above. 

The KCA is an inductive argument. This is an important point. "Inductive reasoning (as opposed to deductive reasoning or abductive reasoning) is reasoning in which the premises are viewed as supplying strong evidence for the truth of the conclusion.While the conclusion of a deductive argument is certain, the truth of the conclusion of an inductive argument is probable, based upon the evidence given." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductive_reasoning

Which number(s) do you think are false?

I'll start with the inconsistency in the use of the phrase, "begin to exist."
The argument can be reduced to this:

1 Everything that did A must have had B
2 C did A
3 Therefore C must have had B

In order for this argument to work, A must mean the same thing in both premise 1 and 2. You use the phrase "that begins to exist" for A in both lines. But, begin to exist does not mean the same thing in both lines.

Line one refers to the type of coming into existence that we observe around us. People are born, sedimentary rocks are formed, wood burns to ash, trees grow, houses are built, metal is cast, and so on. None of these things involve new matter/energy coming into existence. They all merely involve rearranging existing matter into new configurations. Matter might become energy or vice versa, but no new matter or energy is created out of nothing. This is the transformation of existing matter and energy only. It is not an ultimate coming into existence. And each of these transformations of existing matter and energy follow the laws of the universe. No new physical laws are created by these transformations. So while, beginning to exist might be a good loose way of describing these transformations, they don't involve new matter/energy comming into existence.

It's intuitively obvious to us from observation that every transformation of this kind has a, or more likely many, many causes.

But line two refers to the creation of all the matter and energy there is, plus all of the laws governing it. This is a completely different type of beginning to exist. You and I have never seen anything begin to exist in this way. Unlike "begin to exist" in line one which is really just a transformation, this really is beginning to exist. It is nothing like the beginning to exist of line one. It is the difference between carving a stake out of a stick and having a stick magically pop out of the air made out of entirely new matter. Even that doesn't cover it unless the stick comes with its own brand new set of physical laws.

Extrapolating from our knowledge about the transformation of existing matter and energy to the actual creation of matter and energy is a leap because we know nothing about the actual creation of matter and energy except that it all came from a single point in space.

I would reformulated lines one and two to better describe what is actually being described by, "beginning to exist."

1. Each transformation of one configureation of matter and/or energy into a different cofigurations matter or energy has a cause or causes.
2. The universe began with the creation of all matter and energy
3. Therefore the universe has a cause or causes

Number three no longer follows from numbers one and two.

Instead you have:

1. Everything that did A had a B
2. C did D
3. Therefore, C had B

It is a broken syllogism.