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

[polymath257]

You miss the point.  I clearly stated that I do not offer my syllogism as proof of its conclusion.

The point is that my syllogism takes its premises from inside the universe and applies it to the univers as a whole and to things outside the universe.  This it shares with all first cuase arguments.  And therefore it fails for presicely the same reason that all first cause arguments fail.  That I can use the same method and reach a very different result is a demonstration of why first cause arguments fail. 

This is absolutely false. Only your argument starts with material things. This is really getting old. This is like to 9th time I have explained this in this thread and like three times to you. 

Plain and simple: Reasoning gives us that some sort of causal principle is an objective feature of all reality. Not everything has a material cause (even within the universe). Everything has a sufficient cause (seems to be the bare basic level of cause). The universe is something. It must have at the very least a bare basic cause (sufficient cause). Want the fuller explanation? address my answer to you in  https://atheistforums.org/post-1717655.html#pid1717655

No, that is not the result of reason. That is the result of a variety of assumptions as listed in the post you referred to. In particular, the 'causal principle' is not proven, but is, instead *assumed* without further reason.

In this, I assume you are identifying 'sufficient cause' with 'efficient cause' in the other post. But there is no proof that when something 'begins to exist', that there is necessarily 'things apart from the thing being changed or moved, which interact so as to be an agency of the change or movement'. In fact, that is not even true *within* the universe and there is no reason to assume such is the case *outside* of the universe (whatever that *could* mean).

It is a compositional fallacy and a categorical error.

To extrapolate about cause and effect, or even the existence of cause and effect in an eternal setting is a category error. 

It is also error to compare the actual creation of new  material or energy to the effect of energy and matter on energy and matter.  There is no equivalency.

There is no category error because only you are limiting the premise to be material things. There are a large number of things that do no have material causes:

1. The thing that makes you "you".
2. Mathematical objects.
3. Ideas, novels, and symphonies
4. Language
5. Classes, properties, descriptions

Lest you forget what a material cause is, it is the thing of which an objects is made. 

This whole argument stems from the same issue I brought up above:

A lot of internet atheist go wrong here and I think it stems from a complete lack of philosophical training. They cannot differentiate between scientific descriptions and concepts that are clearly not science. It is logical positivism/scientism but, ironically, they cannot identify their mistake because they have no philosophical training. Since they cannot identify that component in their worldview, they don't know that it has been dismissed by nearly everyone for more that 50 years. So, it lives on.

Well, first of all, the material cause as you defined it is simply the composition. So, I am a biological creature and my composition is that of such a creature.

Mathematical objects are NOT 'objects' in the sense of this discussion: they have no causal influence at all and are, in essence, language constructs.

Ideas, novels, etc. Arew ALL based on the physical world. Ideas happen in brains, Novels have a variety of different aspects, but can be on paper, electronic patterns, etc.

Language is a convention we humans use to communicate. Again, it is an aspect of our brains and biology.

Classes, properties, and descriptions are, once again, conventions.

I have had a fair amount of philosophical training. I just think your viewpoints are wrong. They have to be updated to a more modern approach.