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

[RoadRunner79]

What I mean, is that I don't see anyone on the opposing side, making the argument that you are attempting to refute.  And I'm glad that you think that snowflakes need a reason, for beginning to exist.   I agree.  And I'm sorry, but since I'm not making the argument that you are trying to refute, I don't really see the need to go into a number of things that cause a snowflake to form.

Um, snowflakes don't begin to exist. They are a re-arrangement of existing matter. If the sense in which you're using 'begin to exist' includes snowflakes forming, then it includes our universe transforming from a previous state of existence.

Is there a reason that it cannot be both?  

I would disagree, and say that there is a point, where a snowflake begins to exist.   To clarify if you have a prior point with no snowflakes, and a later point, where you have at least one snowflake then the snowflake had a beginning.  By your same logic, then you could say that you existed 2 million years ago.

I used to have a link, of an atheists website, which was taking on some common bad arguments against the KCA.  One of the topics, was what was meant by beginning, and the author had a number of links to older explanations by WLC of what he meant.  Within this, is the idea of change;  a change in description to be exact. A change from !A  to A.   It wasn't spelled out specifically, but I would carry this on even to include such things Newtons first law of motion.   If we have a description of something, the movement (or resting state) of that object is part of that description.  Any change in the motion of that object, requires a cause or an explanation for this change in description.