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

[RoadRunner79]

It seems that you appeal to a number of things as causes in this.  As well, you by nothing (like L. Krauss) you seem to mean something rather than no thing.  Where I would quibble, is that I do not believe that the laws of physics is a thing in and of it self.  It is a description for the logical way in which things behave (Note: not nothing... well  perhaps for some people). 

And I agree. When there is a vacuum, there is NO THING in that vacuum. And yet, that vacuum can 'decay' and produce THINGS. So, yes, Some *thing* can come from no *thing*.

I'm going to need more than a claim, to drop the belief in causality.  I'm not willing to just take it on faith, because as we can see, there is some equivocating which is sometimes taken advantage of.  Personally, I need a testimony of what was done, what was observed, and then specifics as to how it is determined to be without cause.   For some skeptics I have heard, even the testimony of others would not be enough for such an extraordinary claim.  Some may not believe, if they saw it themselves.  The problem I have, is that this is the type of claim, that involves more than simple observation.

Yes, it does. It is the correlation between identical situations that shows a violation of causality. A good read for this is a little article by Mermin 'Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?'

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin%20longer.pdf

Mermin is, by the way, a very respected physicist with a long publication record and a very frequently used book on Solid State Physics.

Thanks, I'll look it over.   My experience has been that the nondeterminism of QM is sometimes confounded for being non-caused.

The following I think reflects my view from what I have seen. 
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

Quntum 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.

[GrandizerII]

And I agree. When there is a vacuum, there is NO THING in that vacuum. And yet, that vacuum can 'decay' and produce THINGS. So, yes, Some *thing* can come from no *thing*.


Yes, it does. It is the correlation between identical situations that shows a violation of causality. A good read for this is a little article by Mermin 'Is the Moon There When Nobody Looks?'

http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/lectures/Mermin%20longer.pdf

Mermin is, by the way, a very respected physicist with a long publication record and a very frequently used book on Solid State Physics.

Thanks, I'll look it over.   My experience has been that the nondeterminism of QM is sometimes confounded for being non-caused.

The following I think reflects my view from what I have seen. 
https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/...principle/

Quntum 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.

If there is true randomness involved (which is what most, if not all, indeterministic interpretations involve), then some aspect of causality is being violated. Probabilistic outcomes imply that there is a lack of cause regarding the exact state of the outcome. The outcome just happens to be the way it is randomly (code word for "no reason").

[robvalue]

You alleged "god" is supposedly a sentient thing with powers, where did it come from and how did it acquire the powers and the stuff and time make the universe? Where did it exist before it did all that?

Positing a god only adds questions that I have never seen any theist even try to answer.

Oh, all those things are category errors; hence unknowable, remember?  Except for when we’re arguing the KCA, that is.  😏

---

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

*sigh*

It’s like the last 15 pages never happened and we have to start all over.  I imagine this is why atheists get bored with debating after a while.

I’m feeling that way. I don’t know what I could even say to the tripe I’ve been reading of late. What on earth these people are doing here, I have no idea.

[polymath257]

Quntum 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.

I'm going to disagree here. The potential to occur is what QM predicts. It even predicts the probabilities of occurrence. It is *precisely* the activation of that potential that isn't caused.

For example, a uranium atom always has the *potential' to decay. And there is NO difference between the uranium atom that decays now verses one that decays a billion years from now. There is NOTHING that actualized that potential to decay. And that means the decay is uncaused.

[Jenny A]

I'm not sure how things went from Odin, to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  However, sometimes I think that things can be lost in the back and forth such as here in the KCA.  So here are a few thoughts on the conversation. 

There are number of fallacious claims, that seem to be flung at the KCA.  Many of them are very much wrong, some plain bad.  I won't go over the bad claims.  One of the stronger claims of fallacy is perhaps the claim that there is equivocation in the phrase "begins to exist".  However I think that this is just a misunderstanding, and at least for myself, I am not using the phrase in two different ways.  The fallacy of equivocation is something like JimBob is Greek, Greek is a language, therefore JimBob is a language.  This is obviously wrong, and the problem comes in that the word "Greek" is no being used in the same way, and there isn't the relationship between the two  premises.  What I have seen (and what I mean) by "begins to exist"  is that it comes into being, or that it was not, and now is.  That which begins to exist, needs a reason or explanation for that beginning.

Now an issue of the discussion.  Steve had mentioned, that the argument is more likely than not.  From which a discussion became about the mathematics and probabilities.   Here I would argue, that there is an equivocation.   That "likely" or "probable" in an inductive or logical sense, is not the same as in the mathematical sense.  I can somewhat understand, the tendency to put numbers on confidence levels, but I have always thought it is a mistake to then take these numbers and start applying them in a math or science type scenario.   The number is based on something tangible but is little more than the persons sense of what is.  I don't think it is accurately representing the situation, to say that 3 our of 5 times the universe had a cause, and the other 2 it just poofed into being without reason. 

Which brings us to the question at hand.  Are things that begin to exist contingent (dependent on) something else for it's existence. Do things just poof into existence without cause or explanation?  What would keep things from poofing into being all the time?  Are there limits to what nothing can do?  For me, I would say that this is not just more likely, but it is close to a basic principle.  I would say, that I am beyond just skeptical of it.  To go agaisnt the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit and not just asking someone to accept a claim without reason or explanation; but, asking them to accept something that at it's core is without reason or explanation.  My belief is that of the early propagators of science, that the universe is logical and that things do not happen without reason (which would include the beginning of the universe).  I not only believe that an effects needs an explanation for the effect, but that it needs a sufficient cause.  This brings us back to the question of what are the limits of nothing? 

So the question is, which do you think is more likely?   Do things poof into existence without cause, or does everything that begins to exist have a reason for that beginning.  Does it make a difference, that this argument is used as part of a larger argument for God (a rhetorical question)? Would you be consistent if nothing was offered in an argument by a Christian?   If we allow for this, then what can we deny?  For me, to go against the principle from nothing; nothing comes, is going to be similar to accepting a contradiction.   Even if observations appear to indicate that this is so, it's just irrational, and there must be a mistake in what we think we are seeing, or our reasons.

First of all, the validity of an argument or proof should not depend upon it's result, be that god, an endless regress, an endless time loop, or things "poofing" into existence out of nothing.  However, as unlikely as I find the idea of an elephant popping into existence in my backyard, I find both the idea of anything existing externally, and infinite regress equally unlikely.  That there is something outside the universe also boggles my mind.  The human mind isn't equipped to consider any of these possibilities in any realistic or coherent way.  Try for example to talk about a timeless space without tenses messing up what it is you are trying to say.  Or try to think of a nothing so nothing that it includes neither time nor space.  

1.  Beyond the Universe, the Flatland Thought Experiment

When we are looking for a cause of the universe (assuming for the moment that it has one) we are postulating about  something on the other side of a singularity.  And what actually on the other side might be beyond our ability to imagine or describe.  By way of illustration, I'm going to borrow a thought experiment from Edwin A Abbott's 1884 novel, Flatland.  Flatland takes place in a universe with only three dimensions, one of which is time.  Space has only two dimentions there.  We visualise such a world as if we are looking down on it as on a blueprint.  But that is not how it would look to the inhabitants of Flatland who do not have the words up or down in their vocabulary.  Nor do they speak of jumping, falling, or flying.  Digging to China is not a Flatland expression.  

In the novel, Flatland is visited by a sphere from outside the two dimensional universe outside Flatland.  Obviously,  the sphere appears to be a circle in Flatland.  It convinces a square that it is from a 3rd spacial dimension by demonstrating it's ability to grow a shrink as it passes through the two dimensional Flatland.

Imagine for a moment Abbott had had a cube visit instead.  If it came through precisely from one corner to the opposite corner, it would grow and shrink like the sphere.  But if it tilted back and forth it would change shape becoming various four sided shapes as it went.  Or image a human who could appear variously as an iregular oval, two iregular ovals, ten much smaller irregular ovals and so on depending on which body part or parts intersected Flatland.

Thier universe could actually be a point thin skin around a very large sphere.  (This idea is mine not Abbotts). If the sphere were small enough, they might eventually figure this out by traveling away from home in one direction  and eventually arrive at home from the opposite direction.  But the concept of sphere would remain mysterious, at best a mathematical explaination that the very best minds could not grasp.  

I'm afraid that imagining either the outside of the universe (if there is such a thing) or a time before the universe began (again assuming that such time existed) is as difficult and fruitless, as the Flatlanders imagining what a third spacial dimension might be.  

2. Existence, Cause, and Agency

What we know of existence, change, and cause/agency comes entirely from our knowledge of this universe.  At the human scale and larger, nothing in this universe poofs into existence out of nothing without cause. In fact no matter or energy is ever ultimately created or destroyed.  Everything was previously something else and will in turn become yet something else later.  Changes in motion and form all happen because of material causes acting on material forms.  The cause is equally and oppositely affected.  Matter and energy is never either created or lost.  There are no immaterial agents anymore than there are things changing without cause. Materiality of the agency is part and parcel of causation. 

And so is time.  Without time, change, and hence causation, are not meaningful concepts.   If Flatland really had just two dimensions, there would be no story because no inhabitant, could move or think, or change in anyway at all. 

Agency or cause without time and matter is just as absurd as elephants appearing without cause. It too is magic.  You won't see it in your backyard, or anywhere else.

3. What Is Eternity and What does it Mean To Be Eternal?

Colloquially, eternity is forever.  But what does forever mean? It could be a timeless, an ever present.   Matter might exist in such a space but not movement or energy.  Or it could be thought of as an infite regress of time.  In that case an infinite regress of cause and effect would appear possible, or even required--if nothing changes, does it make any sense to say time exists?  Or it could be loop of cause and effect in which there is neither a first nor a last cause and effect and yet there are a finite number of causes and effects.  Or we could concede that there was one a first moment in time, and call eternity time from that point forward.  However, unless something was in motion from that very first moment, there would be no time or change in any functional sense.  It would be as static as timeless eternity--in fact it would be a contradition in terms, a timeless place with a beginning.

A sentient being, however unlikely, might exist either as an infinite regression of being or as a always present member of a loop.  It might be in motion at the beginning of time.  But it could not be sentient, changimg, or moving in a timeless space.

4. Extrapolating From What We Know Of Cause And Effect Does Not Lead Necessarily to God.

Here is my own little syllogism:

The present and past forms of all material things each have a past material cause(s).
The universe is a material thing.
Therefore, the universe has a past material cause, and that cause has a past material cause an so on for eternity.

I do not offer this as proof of an infinite godless regression, but only as demonstration of the futility of using our knowledge of cause and effect within the universe to extrapolate what occurred before the universe (assuming there is a before) or outside the universe.

5.  Subatomic Matter Does Not Appear To Behave Like Matter We Perceive 

At the subatomic level, things do appear to begin to exist, cease to exist, and change without cause(s).  Any extrapolation concerning the cause of the universe (if any) based on what we know about the inside of the universe must take quantum mechanics into account.

6. Our Inability to Know Is Proof of Nothing in Particular

Even when postulating what is outside the universe and beyond what we may ever know, the god of the gaps remains a fallacy.

[I_am_not_mafia]

By a show of hands, if I said that an elephant suddenly appeared in my back yard (like poof)  without reason.  How many would consider that plausible?

Nice to see a theist use the concept of plausibility. Alpha Male's response upon hearing about it was:

OK, what's this concept of plausibility that I missed out on?
...
OK, teach me this concept of plausibility. Honestly it just sounds like bullshit at this point.

This is important because science makes progress by determining which is the most plausible explanation.

[Amarok]

The existence  isn't a elephant . Once again your applying condition that occur WITHIN THE UNIVERSE TO THE UNIVERSE ITSELF WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION . There is no good reason to think the UNIVERSE follows the same causality as an elephant.

So this analogy is stupid 

---

Oh, all those things are category errors; hence unknowable, remember?  Except for when we’re arguing the KCA, that is.  😏

---

*sigh*

It’s like the last 15 pages never happened and we have to start all over.  I imagine this is why atheists get bored with debating after a while.

I’m feeling that way. I don’t know what I could even say to the tripe I’ve been reading of late. What on earth these people are doing here, I have no idea.

They just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over

[possibletarian]

It has become clear.. only Odin has the answers.

[RoadRunner79]

---

I'm not sure how things went from Odin, to the Kalam Cosmological Argument.  However, sometimes I think that things can be lost in the back and forth such as here in the KCA.  So here are a few thoughts on the conversation. 

There are number of fallacious claims, that seem to be flung at the KCA.  Many of them are very much wrong, some plain bad.  I won't go over the bad claims.  One of the stronger claims of fallacy is perhaps the claim that there is equivocation in the phrase "begins to exist".  However I think that this is just a misunderstanding, and at least for myself, I am not using the phrase in two different ways.  The fallacy of equivocation is something like JimBob is Greek, Greek is a language, therefore JimBob is a language.  This is obviously wrong, and the problem comes in that the word "Greek" is no being used in the same way, and there isn't the relationship between the two  premises.  What I have seen (and what I mean) by "begins to exist"  is that it comes into being, or that it was not, and now is.  That which begins to exist, needs a reason or explanation for that beginning.

Now an issue of the discussion.  Steve had mentioned, that the argument is more likely than not.  From which a discussion became about the mathematics and probabilities.   Here I would argue, that there is an equivocation.   That "likely" or "probable" in an inductive or logical sense, is not the same as in the mathematical sense.  I can somewhat understand, the tendency to put numbers on confidence levels, but I have always thought it is a mistake to then take these numbers and start applying them in a math or science type scenario.   The number is based on something tangible but is little more than the persons sense of what is.  I don't think it is accurately representing the situation, to say that 3 our of 5 times the universe had a cause, and the other 2 it just poofed into being without reason. 

Which brings us to the question at hand.  Are things that begin to exist contingent (dependent on) something else for it's existence. Do things just poof into existence without cause or explanation?  What would keep things from poofing into being all the time?  Are there limits to what nothing can do?  For me, I would say that this is not just more likely, but it is close to a basic principle.  I would say, that I am beyond just skeptical of it.  To go agaisnt the principle of ex nihilo nihil fit and not just asking someone to accept a claim without reason or explanation; but, asking them to accept something that at it's core is without reason or explanation.  My belief is that of the early propagators of science, that the universe is logical and that things do not happen without reason (which would include the beginning of the universe).  I not only believe that an effects needs an explanation for the effect, but that it needs a sufficient cause.  This brings us back to the question of what are the limits of nothing? 

So the question is, which do you think is more likely?   Do things poof into existence without cause, or does everything that begins to exist have a reason for that beginning.  Does it make a difference, that this argument is used as part of a larger argument for God (a rhetorical question)? Would you be consistent if nothing was offered in an argument by a Christian?   If we allow for this, then what can we deny?  For me, to go against the principle from nothing; nothing comes, is going to be similar to accepting a contradiction.   Even if observations appear to indicate that this is so, it's just irrational, and there must be a mistake in what we think we are seeing, or our reasons.

First of all, the validity of an argument or proof should not depend upon it's result, be that god, an endless regress, an endless time loop, or things "poofing" into existence out of nothing.  However, as unlikely as I find the idea of an elephant popping into existence in my backyard, I find both the idea of anything existing externally, and infinite regress equally unlikely.  That there is something outside the universe also boggles my mind.  The human mind isn't equipped to consider any of these possibilities in any realistic or coherent way.  Try for example to talk about a timeless space without tenses messing up what it is you are trying to say.  Or try to think of a nothing so nothing that it includes neither time nor space.  

1.  Beyond the Universe, the Flatland Thought Experiment

When we are looking for a cause of the universe (assuming for the moment that it has one) we are postulating about  something on the other side of a singularity.  And what actually on the other side might be beyond our ability to imagine or describe.  By way of illustration, I'm going to borrow a thought experiment from Edwin A Abbott's 1884 novel, Flatland.  Flatland takes place in a universe with only three dimensions, one of which is time.  Space has only two dimentions there.  We visualise such a world as if we are looking down on it as on a blueprint.  But that is not how it would look to the inhabitants of Flatland who do not have the words up or down in their vocabulary.  Nor do they speak of jumping, falling, or flying.  Digging to China is not a Flatland expression.  

In the novel, Flatland is visited by a sphere from outside the two dimensional universe outside Flatland.  Obviously,  the sphere appears to be a circle in Flatland.  It convinces a square that it is from a 3rd spacial dimension by demonstrating it's ability to grow a shrink as it passes through the two dimensional Flatland.

Imagine for a moment Abbott had had a cube visit instead.  If it came through precisely from one corner to the opposite corner, it would grow and shrink like the sphere.  But if it tilted back and forth it would change shape becoming various four sided shapes as it went.  Or image a human who could appear variously as an iregular oval, two iregular ovals, ten much smaller irregular ovals and so on depending on which body part or parts intersected Flatland.

Thier universe could actually be a point thin skin around a very large sphere.  (This idea is mine not Abbotts). If the sphere were small enough, they might eventually figure this out by traveling away from home in one direction  and eventually arrive at home from the opposite direction.  But the concept of sphere would remain mysterious, at best a mathematical explaination that the very best minds could not grasp.  

I'm afraid that imagining either the outside of the universe (if there is such a thing) or a time before the universe began (again assuming that such time existed) is as difficult and fruitless, as the Flatlanders imagining what a third spacial dimension might be.  

2. Existence, Cause, and Agency

What we know of existence, change, and cause/agency comes entirely from our knowledge of this universe.  At the human scale and larger, nothing in this universe poofs into existence out of nothing without cause. In fact no matter or energy is ever ultimately created or destroyed.  Everything was previously something else and will in turn become yet something else later.  Changes in motion and form all happen because of material causes acting on material forms.  The cause is equally and oppositely affected.  Matter and energy is never either created or lost.  There are no immaterial agents anymore than there are things changing without cause. Materiality of the agency is part and parcel of causation. 

And so is time.  Without time, change, and hence causation, are not meaningful concepts.   If Flatland really had just two dimensions, there would be no story because no inhabitant, could move or think, or change in anyway at all. 

Agency or cause without time and matter is just as absurd as elephants appearing without cause. It too is magic.  You won't see it in your backyard, or anywhere else.

3. What Is Eternity and What does it Mean To Be Eternal?

Colloquially, eternity is forever.  But what does forever mean? It could be a timeless, an ever present.   Matter might exist in such a space but not movement or energy.  Or it could be thought of as an infite regress of time.  In that case an infinite regress of cause and effect would appear possible, or even required--if nothing changes, does it make any sense to say time exists?  Or it could be loop of cause and effect in which there is neither a first nor a last cause and effect and yet there are a finite number of causes and effects.  Or we could concede that there was one a first moment in time, and call eternity time from that point forward.  However, unless something was in motion from that very first moment, there would be no time or change in any functional sense.  It would be as static as timeless eternity--in fact it would be a contradition in terms, a timeless place with a beginning.

A sentient being, however unlikely, might exist either as an infinite regression of being or as a always present member of a loop.  It might be in motion at the beginning of time.  But it could not be sentient, changimg, or moving in a timeless space.

4. Extrapolating From What We Know Of Cause And Effect Does Not Lead Necessarily to God.

Here is my own little syllogism:

The present and past forms of all material things each have a past material cause(s).
The universe is a material thing.
Therefore, the universe has a past material cause, and that cause has a past material cause an so on for eternity.

I do not offer this as proof of an infinite godless regression, but only as demonstration of the futility of using our knowledge of cause and effect within the universe to extrapolate what occurred before the universe (assuming there is a before) or outside the universe.

5.  Subatomic Matter Does Not Appear To Behave Like Matter We Perceive 

At the subatomic level, things do appear to begin to exist, cease to exist, and change without  cause(s).  Any extrapolation concerning the cause of the universe (if any) based on what we know about the inside of the universe must take quantum mechanics into account.

6. Our Inability to Know Is Proof of Nothing in Particular

Even when postulating what is outside the universe and beyond what we may ever know, the god of the gaps remains a fallacy.

---

Jenny,

Thanks for a well thought out post. I agree it does seem that when you get to things at or beyond the beginning of the universe, that you need to make some sort of jump from what is familiar. And I do realize, that what one might may be willing to concede for one, may not be for another.

[SteveII]

We are rehashing things already discussed. I cannot possibly know what posts you have read. Here is the very first paragraph under the article of Inductive Reasoning:



Just about everything in that paragraph is wrong--starting with your requirements about premises in a syllogism. Read the link above to learn more about an inductive argument. 

As to the percentage question, you do NOT multiply probabilities together to come up with a net probability in a syllogism. The conclusion's probability is equal to the lowest of the premise probabilities. Think about it--the more premises you have that are likely true would reduce the net probability if you multiplied them together. 

The proposition you have stated is:

All things that begin to exist have a cause
The universe began to exist
Therefore the universe had a cause

That is a syllogism.  Syllogisms use deductive reasoning from two or more propositions to reach a conclusion.  If the logic is sound, and all of the propositions are true, the the conclusion follows.  If any proposition is false the  syllogism  fails.  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllogism  https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/syllogism  http://philosophyterms.com/syllogism/  https://www.britannica.com/topic/syllogism  Look it up.

I should have been clearer. The premises themselves are derived inductively. The syllogism is in the form of a deductive argument. This means exactly what I have been saying. The conclusion is based on the probability of the premises being true. In the case of the argument, it is the vast majority of scientists, philosophers, and regular people that both premises are likely true. Therefore it follows that the conclusion is probably true. There is no logical fallacy or problem with the structure. 

To determine the probability of two or more things all being true you multiply to probability of each thing together.  And yes the probability of both propositions being true will be the same if all chances are 100% nd lower if they are not.  https://www.mathplanet.com/education/pre...-of-events.  Look it up.  It's Pre Calc 101.

If you roll a pair of dice the chance of rolling a six is one in six for each die.  If you want to know what the chances are that at least on of the die will come up six, you add the probabilities together.  So, 1/6 + 1/6 = 1/3. But, if you want to know what the chances are of both die rolling 6, you multiply the probabilites.p 1/6 × 1/6 = 1/36. 

Since both proposition 1 and two must be true for the conclusion to follow, it is correct to multiply the probability of the propositions together to determine the probability that the conclusion is proved as stated by the syllogism. 

The probability that your syllogism proves that the universe has a cause is dependant on both (1) everything that begins to exist having a cause, and  (2) the universe beginning to exist.  So to determine the likelihood that the syllogism proves that the universe has a cause we multiply the probability of the first two propositions together.

That reasoning will not work for inductive reasoning. It just does not. Using your method, the more reasons you list that something might be true, the probability of it being true goes down. That is simply not logically possible, so the principle cannot apply. 

[Edit: Polymath correctly notes that the computation of the probability of the two propositions both being  true would be affected  if the the truth of one proposition makes the other proposition more or less likely.  I agree.  ]

Notice that I did not say that that gives us the absolute probability of whether the universe has a cause because there might other evidence besides your syllogism, that the universe has a cause.  Perhaps you might have inductive evidence that the universe has a cause?

A premise in any syllogism has to have support. If could have a 10 pages of arguments that support a 10 word premises. Fleshing out the KCA alone takes like 40 pages in my reference books (philosophers are very careful in their published works). 

That the universe began to exist can be argued on scientific grounds as well a metaphysical grounds. The most promising models for 50+ years have posited the beginning of the universe. All recent observations continue to confirm it and NEVER undercut it. Of course you can find a fringe theory that says otherwise. Metaphysically speaking, there is no way to rationally believe that an infinite number of events could have already happened. This (and more) translates into premise (2) being much more likely true than not. 

Listen, if you want to hang onto the % of uncertainty in the argument and say it is not convincing, fine. That is the only option open to you. What you cannot show is that the argument is wrong or fallacious.