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

[vulcanlogician]

Well, Spinoza thought it was an axiom (Axiom 7). In fact, I read in some places he says it is a necessary truth. 

In a brief explanatory note to this axiom, Spinoza adds:

Since existing is something positive, we cannot say that it has nothing as its cause (by Axiom 7). Therefore, we must assign some positive cause, or reason, why [a thing] exists—either an external one, i.e., one outside the thing itself, or an internal one, one comprehended in the nature and definition of the existing thing itself. (Geb. I/158/4–9)[3]

Axiom 7, to which Spinoza appeals in the explanation, is a variant of the “ex nihilo, nihil fit” (“from nothing, nothing comes”) principle, and stipulates that an existing thing and its perfections (or qualities) cannot have nothing or a non-existing thing as their cause. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/

In all of our observations, something has never come from nothing. Everything as always come from something. Is that enough evidence for the principle: being comes from being?

I don't think Spinoza is who you want to consult for support, Steve. The same SEP article you quote says:

Spinoza allows for one unique item to be without a cause. In §70 of this treatise, Spinoza argues:

[T]hat Thought is also called true which involves objectively the essence of some principle that does not have a cause, and is known through itself and in itself. (II/26/33–4. Our emphasis)

That makes sense doesn't it. "One unique item" is without cause. But that is a rather unique an mysterious item that doesn't have a cause isn't it? We mortals could hardly fathom such a thing. The KCA places a god in the fog of our bewilderment. That's the whole problem with premise 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."

Where does one gather that this uncaused cause must have all these properties? Show me the logic. I simply don't see it.

I like Spinoza's version way better: "does not have a cause, and is known through itself and in itself." That's all. And, yes, Spinoza does call this principle God, but it isn't any God that theists talk about.

1. Spinoza's God is not personal. It does not care about the affairs of mankind. It isn't self-aware of itself in the sense that we are. It doesn't care about your life or anyone else's.
2. It is not a creator. It is "nature being nature." It is itself all that is. It did not deliberately create the cosmos. God just "happened" and we are all part of it.
3. As for beginingless, I cannot say. I'd have to look it up.
4. Spinoza's God is not changeless. It changes.
5. Spinoza's God is not immaterial. In fact, Spinoza's God literally is all material. It's not just material. It is infinite and encompasses all things whether material or immaterial. But to Spinoza, the coffee cup in your hand is God. So is every one of your pubic hairs.
6. Timeless I don't know. What does timeless even mean in this context? Put this one down for a maybe.
7. Spinoza's God is not spaceless. It is space and everything within it. And anything that might exist outside spacial dimensions is also God.
8. I'll give you enormously powerful again because Spinoza's God is all power everywhere. Since it actually is all power, it follows that "enormously powerful" is an appropriate descriptor.

So out of 8 qualities, 2 might match up to Spinoza's conception. Like I said, Spinoza doesn't really help your case. In fact, he obliterates premise 4 by postulating an entity with virtually none of the qualities listed in it.

Where did this list of properties in premise 4 come from? Where are they demonstrated to be necessary in the argument? You see my problem. Give me some logic.