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

[RoadRunner79]

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 retro-causality, 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.)

I've seen some "retro" causality, which where making philosophical arguments which where fairly bad.  Kind of reminded me of a thought experiment someone came up with in a classroom, that went too far.  

I've also have seen some recently, that are talking about quantum entanglement, and a faster than a light link, which they then call call retro-causality.  This however has more to do with relativity and the frame of reference (from my understanding),  saying that something faster than light would be going into the past.  Here, I think I would only quibble with some of the descriptions, and possibly leading some to think something that its is not.

Without seeing your article, it sounds like they are looking for funding, and still have a ways to go yet.

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

And if you get new information, then it would falsify that premise.  However the consensus seems to be, that the universe is ~14Billion years old.  If nothing else, it seems that there is more reason and evidence than not that the universe did have a beginning.  But some seem to not like that answer.