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

[GrandizerII]

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

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.

The KCA is an argument about the universe, not about the irrelevant abstract stuff you keep mentioning. There is a reason Aristotle was compelled by the same logic you're relying on to believe that the universe had no beginning. And we all know why you won't agree with Aristotle here.

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

And material objects are not made of "nothing".

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.

Yeah, the smart "Internet atheists" with PhDs in various important subjects (including philosophy), pointing out the various mistakes you keep making when it comes to mathematics and logic, while you ignore their corrections and continue to hopelessly defend the indefensible. So I wonder which one of them suffers from a "complete lack of philosophical training". Sometimes, Steve, you can be pathetic beyond belief with the way you think so highly of yourself when it's clearly unwarranted.

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.

And you clearly have no high-level training in mathematics or much to do with science. And honestly, you aren't that good with the logic either, so I also question the thought of you having sufficient training in philosophy. Just because you may have had some training in Christian apologetics doesn't make you an exemplary philosopher all of a sudden.

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.

You keep saying that, but you don't even try to point out the specifics that would demonstrate what you're saying is true. Just saying stuff repeatedly, while continually appealing to some vague "consensus", doesn't make what you're saying true.