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

[SteveII]

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

How many of these exist apart from our material universe ?

They all could/probably do if in fact the supernatural exists. However, that is not the argument. The point is we can see that even abstract concepts and objects that are not bound by the physical laws of the universe require a causal principle. This fact further supports the idea that a causal principle is an objective feature of all reality and therefore cannot be separated from the concept of existence. Tell me, can you conceive of a reality that has no governing causal principle? There would be no structure to even hold anything material together nor any duration/enduring of anything. There would be no possibility of even thinking (defined as a process of ordered thoughts). 

So, if we can't conceive of such a reality, why would we deny the premise "anything that begins to exist has a cause" is a lot more likely true than not? To deny it's not, is utter nonsense and seems to stem from some sort of irrational desire to prove the concept wrong. Further, it's not even a thing among philosophers to argue against things like the Principle of Sufficient Reason. It's almost like if a Christian says "white" there are those that are convinced that "black" must be the case.  

This is why I am done with Grandizer, Polymath, and Mathilda (and probably Jenny) on this subject. They seem incapable of taking that step back and seeing this point.