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

[RoadRunner79]

It stands to reason that if you define something you exclude everything else that does not meet that definition. Does this mean you are making some sort of claims about everything else that does not fit the definition or does it give the everything else so sort of status that it did not have before? No, that's silly. 

But here's the problem specifically with KCA.

The set of everything that begins to exist, contains everything we encounter in the universe.

Besides your god, what else is in the excluded set of things that do not begin to exist?

If your set of  exclusions (things that do not begin to exist) does not contain anything but your god, then you are smuggling the conclusion into the first premise.

There are a few issues with your argument.

1. The number of things to which the premise applies doesn't effect the logic, on which the conclusion is based.
   
2. You are making a different argument than the one that is being presented (which it is frowned upon to make up an argument just to knock down yourself).  However you will often see a relation between the conclusion and the premises.  It's the relation between these things, that make the conclusion follow from the logic.
   
3. The immediate conclusion to the syllogism that you are talking about is that - the universe had a cause.  So while the logic is flawed, your argument doesn't seem to apply (assuming that you are trying to accurately represent the KCA as presented by Steve or Dr. Craig.