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

[Simon Moon]

It stands to reason that if you define something you exclude everything else that does not meet that definition. Does this mean you are making some sort of claims about everything else that does not fit the definition or does it give the everything else so sort of status that it did not have before? No, that's silly. 

But here's the problem specifically with KCA.

The set of everything that begins to exist, contains everything we encounter in the universe.

Besides your god, what else is in the excluded set of things that do not begin to exist?

If your set of exclusions (things that do not begin to exist) does not contain anything but your god, then you are smuggling the conclusion into the first premise.

[I_am_not_mafia]

But here's the problem specifically with KCA.

The set of everything that begins to exist, contains everything we encounter in the universe.

Besides your god, what else is in the excluded set of things that do not begin to exist?

If your set of  exclusions (things that do not begin to exist) does not contain anything but your god, then you are smuggling the conclusion into the first premise.

Not sure how anyone could express that more simply.

[RoadRunner79]

It stands to reason that if you define something you exclude everything else that does not meet that definition. Does this mean you are making some sort of claims about everything else that does not fit the definition or does it give the everything else so sort of status that it did not have before? No, that's silly. 

But here's the problem specifically with KCA.

The set of everything that begins to exist, contains everything we encounter in the universe.

Besides your god, what else is in the excluded set of things that do not begin to exist?

If your set of  exclusions (things that do not begin to exist) does not contain anything but your god, then you are smuggling the conclusion into the first premise.

There are a few issues with your argument.

1. The number of things to which the premise applies doesn't effect the logic, on which the conclusion is based.
   
2. You are making a different argument than the one that is being presented (which it is frowned upon to make up an argument just to knock down yourself).  However you will often see a relation between the conclusion and the premises.  It's the relation between these things, that make the conclusion follow from the logic.
   
3. The immediate conclusion to the syllogism that you are talking about is that - the universe had a cause.  So while the logic is flawed, your argument doesn't seem to apply (assuming that you are trying to accurately represent the KCA as presented by Steve or Dr. Craig.
   

[SteveII]

It stands to reason that if you define something you exclude everything else that does not meet that definition. Does this mean you are making some sort of claims about everything else that does not fit the definition or does it give the everything else so sort of status that it did not have before? No, that's silly. 

But here's the problem specifically with KCA.

The set of everything that begins to exist, contains everything we encounter in the universe.

Besides your god, what else is in the excluded set of things that do not begin to exist?

If your set of  exclusions (things that do not begin to exist) does not contain anything but your god, then you are smuggling the conclusion into the first premise.

A couple of things. One, an inductive argument is going to have, within its premises, mention of the subject (or in this case, it's negation) it is arguing for. There is no inherent logical problem nor is there a fallacy in this fact alone. I am not sure if you have a logical reason for thinking this important in this case or that you just think it should not happen in general. I would point you back to the All Men are Mortal...Socrates is Mortal argument. 

Two, not that it matters for the argument but a Platonist would say that a number of abstract objects would be included in the set of things that do not being to exists. Many mathematicians are Platonists. Another is people like Polymath and Grandizer think the universe exists infinitely in the past so did not begin to exist. It could also be another argument that there is nothing in that set. It's really not the question the argument was designed to analyze.

[LadyForCamus]

Um, snowflakes don't begin to exist. They are a re-arrangement of existing matter. If the sense in which you're using 'begin to exist' includes snowflakes forming, then it includes our universe transforming from a previous state of existence.

I think it's fair to say that a definition of an object can become apparent, in other words there is a point where you would say the water formed into what we would call a snowflake.  It's a definition that's realised rather than matter becoming to exist.

Yep.  The point at which our brains can recognize an object as it’s defined, like a snowflake, is probably the most coherent concept of ‘beginning to exist’ that humans can come up with.  But, it doesn’t follow that our ability to define and recognize objects necessitates that all objects must have an objective, singular cause.

[Jenny A]

[Amarok]

Craigs assertion that something cannot come from nothing is just that 

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/468

[Jenny A]

[LadyForCamus]

I understand your point. You are pointing out the difference between inside the universe and outside the universe and then insisting that it matters. You don't give reasons why it matters. Later on, you just say it is a category error. It's not, because I don't need a specific kind of cause to be true or to create "sets" with them. All that is needed to span any difference is that a causal principle is an objective feature of reality. This would apply both in and out of the universe. There are good reasons to believe this exists and no good reasons to think that it does not.

`

I'm not sure you do see my point.  We say a man painted a hose and therefore he is the cause it's new color.  Fertilization is why an embryo is formed, trees grow from nuts, erosion levels mountains, rivers cut valleys.  It is these examples of an orderly universe from which we deduce cause and effect.  None of these examples involve the creation of new matter.  No new matter is introduced into the world by the birth of a baby, the eruption of a volcano, or by building a house.  All of these things are just rearranging the molecular furniture.  And at least at the macro level, every such transformation appears to have a cause or really many causes. And as long as we are just talking about rearanging the furniture, that everything has a cause or causes is a reasonable premise.

But the beginning of the universe is a a real beginning to exist.  It is the beginning of time, matter, and energy.  In effect it is the beginning of objective reality.  Calling both (1) the creation of matter, and (2) the rearranging of matter "beginning to exist" is not inappropriate.  They are fundamentally different things.  So yes it every much matters (no pun intended).

Extrapolating the rules for matter coming into being from the rules about how to rearrange matter is not possible.  It is a category error.

(You could of course argue that the universe is made up of pre-existing matter.  But if you go that way, then you will have to add all existing matter to the set of things that did not begin to exist in which case under your formulation, matter being eternal  would not need a cause.)

Remember, Jenny:  it’s only a category error when atheists are asking the theist for an explanation of what god is made of, and how he functions.  But, as long as the theist can effectively equivocate by using nondescript language like, ‘beyond the universe’, suddenly we can know all sorts of facts about its objective features.  ?

It’s funny how we can “know” all the things that god is not; time-less, change-less, space-less, cause-less; but we can’t ever know exactly what he is.

Edit:

@steve

I’m very interested in your explanation for how events can happen absent time.

[RoadRunner79]