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

[SteveII]

 No. There is no "category error" unless the premise only applies to one category and not the other. That is not the case here. 

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Just because you can come up with categories, your "category error" charge is nonsense unless there is a category that somehow does not have a causal principle. Is there a category that has no causal principle? 

Quantum level particles.

RR already responded to this silly example that keeps coming up over and over and over:

Quantum mechanics merely describe what takes place at the quantum level.  It makes no reference to causes, but that does not imply that there are no causal entities involved.
Feser hypothesizes that perhaps Oerter understands the law of causality to refer to some sort of deterministic cause, and since quantum mechanics are supposedly indeterministic (a disputed interpretation), the law of causality could not apply.  Feser notes that “[t]he principle of causality doesn’t require that.  It requires only that a potency be actualized by something already actual; whether that something, whatever it is, actualizes potencies according some sort of pattern –deterministic or otherwise — is another matter altogether.”

The fact of the matter is that quantum mechanics has not identified causeless effects or invalidated the causal principle.  For any event to occur it must first have the potential to occur, and then have that potential actualized.  If that potential is actualized, it “must be actualized by something already actual,”[2] and that something is what we identify as the cause. https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

But  setting that aside, each of my categories has a different kind of cause.  Placing the universe in the right category tells you what kind of cause to look for.  If the universe physically exists, you need a physical cause.  If it began to exist before time and space, than "cause" makes no sense. Cause and effect requires time.

First, notice that you are invoking a causal principle for the universe (in bold). You have just agreed with Premise 1. You seem to be objecting to PRem

Second, cause and effect do not require time. If anything, matter/motion/change is needed for time to exist (if not the cause of time itself). 

Third, you are right, saying that the universe began to exist before time and space makes not sense. That's why we don't say that. When the universe began to exist, so would time--simultaneously. 

Fourth, at some point, you run out of physical causes as you go back because it is impossible for there to have been an infinite amount of causes that have already elapsed in order to get to the start of our universe.

As you might learn from Neo, your use of the word "existence" is not fully developed. The fact that we can use 'exist' in separate ways does nothing to the KCA because all that meant is that anything that begins to exists (in any senses of the word) has a cause of its existence. 

The universe does not has a special kind of existence. It is a unique object, but that does not require a special category of existence. It either exists or does not exist. Asking "where" is just a nonsensical question that does not apply--much the same as what was it like 12 hours before the big bang. 

For the twelfth time, it is an objective feature of reality that everything that begins to exist has a cause of its existence. There are no exceptions and it seems that existence without a causal principle is not even coherent. You avoid answering this point because you think there has got to be something wrong with the form argument because you don't like the conclusion. There is nothing wrong with the argument. 

Rather than complain about my analysing what is meant by existence, I suggest YOU define it for purposes of the KCA. 

And, yes, there are things that happen at the quantum level that appear to be without cause.  Before your first premise  can be accepted, you'll need to explain quantum level causation.

x begins to exist if and only if x exists at some time t and there is no time t* prior to t at which x exists.

This can be used for ALL real objects and abstract objects. Any further differentiations you want to make about beginning to exist is unnecessary. You seem to want to because you think it makes a difference to the argument. You can't show an exception or even reason into an exception, there is not category error or special pleading. The premise is sound. 

Are you being deliberately obtuse?  The point is not when, but what counts as beginning to exist.  An elephant is born out of existing matter.  Other than those quantum particles you keep ignoring, what do you know of that is ever made without preexisting material?  I don't think anything made out of stuff already in existence can be compared to the appearance of new things not made out of preexisting stuff. Why should we make that leap?

Something begins to exist when it becomes more than just its component parts and/or separate from the cause of its existence. An elephant begins to exist when takes shape in the womb. A chair becomes a chair when it can serve the purpose of a chair. An idea begins to exist when it has sufficient content to convey meaning. Arguing about stages of completion is semantics and entirely subjective. The principle is always there--at one point you didn't have x and and another point you obviously have x. 

Regarding your "preexisting stuff" and "leap", we are very clearly talking about prior to the universe. Why would we limit ourselves to a component of the causal principle that very obviously has to do with the atoms and molecules within our universe. Imposing a material cause restriction when there are many examples of things that do not have material causes is not justifiable. Additionally, through inductive reasoning, we can clearly see that an infinite chain of material causes is impossible. There is no such thing as an actual infinite by successive addition. There must be an immaterial cause at some point in the past chain.  

Again, all that is needed is that everything shows some type of cause. You cannot limit it to a material cause, so you fail to establish a category error or special pleading. This objection fails with the rest of them. 

The universe is material.  Name a single material thing without a material  cause. Hint, there are those pesky particles.  But if you ignore them, then we are back to all material things need a material cause.

Again with the "in the universe" restrictions. The conversation is about before the universe.