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

[Amarok]

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore Socrates is mortal.

This is the same form of construction as the KCA.

Difference is that we know that Socrates is a man. We do not know that the universe had a beginning.

---

Just to really fuck things up for everyone, newscientist magazine has recently been describing efforts by physicists to explain quantum weirdness using the concept of retrocausality.

Unfortunately link is behind a paywall. I have a copy of the magazine but would need to scan the article.

Quantum time machine: How the future can change what happens now

But if the theorists going back to the future with retrocausality can make it stick, the implications would be almost as mind-boggling. They could not only explain the randomness seemingly inherent to the quantum world, but even remake it in a way that finally brings it into line with Einstein’s ideas of space and time – an achievement that has eluded physicists for decades. “If you allow retrocausality, it is possible to have a theory of reality that’s more compatible with lots of things that we think should be true,”

Whether or not it is correct, point is that every day intuitions about how the world works (e.g. begins to exist, cause) do not apply to the quantum scale (e.g. photons do not experience time), and therefore also do not apply to the first moments after the Big Bang when there was no matter, only energy and quantum fluctuations. (Matter formed quickly afterwards and stayed with us ever since just being rearranged over time in different ways.)

If socrates even existed . And what would happen if we observed socrates drink a absolutely lethal dose  of hemlock and not die ? Would we conclude socrates is still mortal?