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

[SteveII]

First, you can break any causal concept into four parts: material, formal, efficient, and final. 


Since the argument is talking about 'cause' in a broader sense, the argument uses the concept of agent or efficient cause. Your whole objection deals with a material cause which when talking about things outside of our universe, is an inadequate concept. If it helps, you can just insert the word 'efficient' in front of cause in both (1) and (3)


As I explained above, you are zeroing in on one aspect of causation that is obviously too restrictive when talking about thing that may have happened prior to the first moments of the universe. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has an efficient cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has an efficient cause.

BTW, this is spelled out in the extensive writings on the KCA.

No, that changes in the form of matter and energy have causes is appaerent.  That matter or energy coming into existence must have a cause is not.  Give me just one example of anything causing matter or energy to be created out of anything but existing matter and energy.

That was a long reply that you answered with 3 sentences. You have simply restated the question the KCA is asking. Which premise are you objecting to?

---

What was the material cause of Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina or Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony? These things began to exist (along with like 4 trillion other examples I could give).

You're talking about the sound waves and words on paper, or the abstract parts? Be clear on what you're referring to here when you say "Anna Karenina" or "Fifth Symphony".

There are other problems with you list, but let's start there.

I'm sure there are problems with the argument; this is because we're going along with outdated notions of causality/movement. As such, your "efficient cause" argument is problematic in various ways as well.

---

So this is even more interesting. There is no material cause to a novel or symphony (only an efficient cause). Both are abstract objects. Yet they can be a cause of their own once read or heard. You can be compelled to act by a novel or emotionally moved by a symphony. In the same way, ideas (conveyed through language) are not material and yet can have so much causal power. So not only is it possible that the immaterial is the efficient cause on the material (us), but it happens constantly.

But concrete/material objects do require material causes (according to human intuition, at least). If the universe is considered to be material and concrete, then Aristotelian-based logic necessitates that it has always been because it couldn't have had a material cause external to it.

If, however, the universe is an abstract collective of material things, then it seems like it doesn't need a material cause after all. It just is, and always has been (in one form or another).

EDIT: One could also argue abstract objects that begin to exist have their "material cause" in the mind itself. Or that abstract objects emerge from the material objects that they are linked to.

No, one can't argue that. The novel or symphony is not made out of the same material as the brain or paper. They have not material cause. Only efficient causes. You are not arguing with me on some sort of interpretation. You are arguing with established definitions. 

Requiring material objects to exist is just a feature of our universe.

---

Look at the quote I used above in response to Astreja . Especially the last paragraph where it pulls it all together.

Oh look it happened exactly as expected ...

Oh look, another nebulous term that is not properly defined.

I bet the answer will be logic.

That's all you have Stevell. Bullshit abstract terms that allow you to equivocate and conflate.

Anybody can argue for anything they want using such terms. For example, that Ford C-Max cars are telepathic, the existence of pixies, for the existence of another religion's god. And if religionists had any solid evidence at all then they wouldn't bother with such  nonsense, they'd say, look, this is my god here.

I know philosophy is hard. But you should really learn some if you want to discuss things past a middle-school level. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science