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

[Mister Agenda]

This is why I like the KCA!  I think that the range and depth of the rebuttals are somewhat humorous.  I've seen the same person argue, that things don't need a cause to begin to exists.  Which one may point out, that the causal principle is foundational to the study of science.  If nothing is a cause, then what are the limits of nothing?   The Causal Principle is not only used to deduce what will happen when some change is introduced, but is also used to infer a cause based on the effect.  And not only must there be a cause to produce an effect, this cause must be sufficient for the effect.  It begs the question how one determines that nothing a cause (how would one falsify it)?

From here, the same person may change up; and say it's the fallacy of composition.   That the things within the universe no require a cause, but the universe does not.   Which leads us to ask why is that?  How is the universe being defined, that makes it different?   First I don't think that it is explicit in the premise (everything that begin to exist; must have a cause) that the whole has the same attributes as the parts.  I do not see anyone making this argument.  It may be said, that this is based on our observation from within the universe.  However if this is true; then, how can a cosmologist say anything about the origin of the universe (which is half of their job description).  If the claim is that the universe doesn't require a cause whereas, that which makes up the universe does.  I ask why is that? 

It is natural to look for a cause for an effect.  It is natural to expect a sufficient cause for a given effect, even if that cause cannot be demonstrated.  We may even infer certain properties about a cause that is unknown based on what we see in the effect.  I am curious for those who invoke nothing as a cause, how often you would accept this in any other circumstance?   Many here are fond of quoting "that which is given without reason, can be dismissed without reason".  Apparently until it comes to the universe and everything in it, then... one doesn't need a reason (at least if the alternative might be something like God).

I'll make all the arguments, and I'm especially fond of the fallacy of composition regarding the universe. Criticizing an argument doesn't require consistency. An argument can have multiple flaws, some of which are mutually contradictory. I don't have to believe that something can result from nothing in order to note that it's an assertion, not a fact, and it's flaws include that the only thing we've ever even indirectly observed coming from nothing are virtual particles, everything else is a recombination of previous states. Something coming from nothing doesn't have to be true for the KSA to fail. Causality not applying to the universe itself does not have to be true for the KSA to fail. The questions themselves show that taking the first premise as a given is not justifiable.

The first premise of the argument fails because the only things we have evidence of beginning to exist (virtual particles) occur without a cause, just because that's what happens when there's nothing preventing it, AND applying within universe rules to the universe is fallacious, AND we don't know the universe ever 'began to exist' in an ultimate sense in the first place. The conclusion of the KSA may be true, but if so, it's not because of the logic used to arrive at it.