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

[Amarok]

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



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.


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

I think the following article is relevant, but I haven't backtracked through your argument with Jenny here to be sure.  Regardless, I think it's worth your time.

Craig, Kalam, and Quantum Mechanics: Has Craig Defeated the Quantum Mechanics Objection to the Causal Principle?

Good article 

But Steve is committed to spewing Craigs nonsense till death .Because actual physics creates problems for his fables .