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

[RoadRunner79]

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.

Do you think 'everything that changes, has a cause' would a fair restatement of the first premise of the KCA?

Off hand, I don't think I have an issue (although perhaps I still prefer the classical vocabulary).  I may have to think about it a bit; if there is a way this may be misunderstood, before committing to it.  In the KCA I think the focus is going from !A to A; so,  perhaps begin to exist is better in that case.