Those are not formal syllogisms. There is no valid argument construct. And all the sentences are just undefended assertions.

Last chance:

Produce a formally valid and sound syllogism or GTFO.

That would be “the universe is itself the first something.” So it is still a trivial instantiation of P3.

But be aware, that possibility came up in my discussion of Bogardus; it just never came up in my debate with Alvaro.

“It is always trivially true—there is always a first something (whether ontologically, for a past-infinite timeline,[9] or temporally, for a past-finite timeline “

Cosmologists have proposed models in which this is not true – where every event has a cause, there is no first cause and yet the universe is finite into the past – see: “Can the Universe Create Itself?,” Phys. Rev. D58 (1998).

I.

Every causal relationship requires at least two elements, namely, cause and effect. Then, where there is no multiplicity, causality does not occur.

If something exists by itself, it is not composite, since the composite exists by its parts.

Therefore, if something is not composite, it is not multiple and cannot maintain a causal relationship with itself. That is, it will not be neither cause nor effect of itself.

Now, what exists by itself is not composite. Consequently, what exists by itself cannot maintain a causal relationship with itself.

II.

Let’s suppose that the universe is an infinite succession of causes and effects. In it, either the aggregate of all effects has a cause, or it does not.

If the aggregate of all effects does not have a cause, there will not be an infinite succession of causes and effects.

If the aggregate of all effects has a cause, such cause will be cause and effect of itself or it will not be an effect. The former is impossible, thus the latter. Consequently, it will be an uncaused cause. And if not all causes are caused, there will not be an infinite succession of causes and effects.

Since both possibilities exclude the assumption of an infinite succession of causes and effects, such assumption must be deemed false.

We’ve been over all this already.

Waiting for a formal proof (valid and sound syllogism).

Still none.

You are wasting everyone’s time here.

Everything that exists does so either by itself or by another.

If something exists by itself, it exists necessarily, meaning it always exists and does not begin to exist.

If something exists because of another, it exists contingently, meaning it does not always exist and begins to exist. In other words: if something begins to exist, it exists because of another, that is, it has a cause.

This principle, known as the principle of sufficient reason, is not true only in a causal universe but in all universes.

If we inquire into how many possible universes there are according to the causal order they adopt, we will see that we can only conceive of two clearly and distinctly: either a universe where the first cause leads to second causes and these to second effects, as happens in ours, or a universe where there are no second causes and all effects depend solely on the first cause. We can call the first model a “causal universe” and the second a “miraculous universe.” Well, even in a miraculous universe, it would be true that everything that begins to exist has a cause.

It is not difficult to conclude that there can be no more universes. Thus, there cannot be a universe in which what begins to exist causes itself, since it would entail a contradiction (to exist by another insofar as it does not always exist and to exist by itself insofar as it is self-caused), nor a universe in which what begins to exist is caused by nothing, since nothing, by its very notion, can do nothing.

In other terms, the universe is either causal or acausal.

If it is acausal, it is necessary that none of its events begin to exist, so it will exclude change and will be an immutable universe where the principle of sufficient reason is neither affirmed nor denied, as happens in the order of eternal ideas or in God Himself. This does not detract an iota of validity from the principle of sufficient reason, which maintains its truth value in the same way that the proposition “all bachelors are unmarried” is true even if no bachelor exists.

If it is causal, it will have a single cause or multiple causes. If single, it will be a miraculous universe in which every effect hangs on a single reason that is inexplicable in itself. If multiple, it will be a causal universe. We cannot suppose more universes, except as a mix of these two, namely, a universe that is sometimes causal and sometimes miraculous.

Therefore, whether it is a universe in which every effect is subordinate to its cause, or another in which every effect is exclusively subordinate to the first cause, the principle of sufficient reason always governs.

That’s not quite what Alvaro is presenting (yet). He has yet to state whether a god even follows from this argument or why or what it is.

Hence I keep pointing out his argument is not proved by its premises, and yet even if the conclusion is still true (for other reasons) it is too trivial a statement to even argue against atheism.

He has yet to respond to this point.

But you might otherwise be right. Maybe what you describe is what he thinks he is doing.

But as he hasn’t done it yet, I have nothing to respond to.

For example, if his deity is conscious, that runs afoul of The Argument from Specified Complexity against Supernaturalism and the fact that Naturalism Is Not an Axiom of the Sciences but a Conclusion of Them, among other things.

As a specific example, if a god can exist and think without a physical brain, then why did he have to make our ability to think dependent on a brain? That contradicts everything Alvaro has said about his god (albeit still not in this debate), and runs afoul of his own Argument from Heaven and any sound Bayesian Argument from Consciousness Against God.

And that makes his theory simply a bad hypothesis, by any empirical standard.

Phase 1. Collect underpants.
Phase 2. ?
Phase 3. Profit!

In this case:

Step 1. Assert the universe had a beginning due to a prior cause that itself was uncaused.
Step 2. ?
Step 3. God!

Maybe the existence of the universe had a discrete beginning with a prior cause and maybe it didn’t. Dr. Alvaro certainly hasn’t demonstrated that this must necessarily be the case (seemingly because he is making assertions without a full awareness of the state of current physics and cosmology; I’m curious if he will catch up a bit and make some adjustments to his out-of-date assumptions). But saying that the Big Bang possibly or even probably had a cause is not controversial and in no way contradicts atheism. The problem is in Step 2: the mysterious, inexplicable, and unsupported leap from a speculated prior cause to an uncaused intentional being capable of creating universes.

As a psychologist, I believe that what’s happening here is a common error of intuition steeped in social learning. Dr. Alvaro has certainly been frequently exposed in his lifetime to the constant descriptions of God as an all-powerful, eternal being that is the author of all things and so subject to no rules other than those of his own making. Thus, Dr. Alvaro has the socially-learned “understanding” that this is what God is—an uncaused being capable of willing universes into existence.

This is why he assumes that the Kalam supports the existence of such a being without recognizing that this assertion is putting the cart before the horse. Because of course this conception of God is utterly without empirical or logical grounding. There isn’t a single known aspect of consciousness that suggests an intentional being could somehow be non-contingent, eternal, self-sustaining, and capable of creating universes—in fact, as far as we can see, consciousness only arises in the context of finite, metabolic collections of chemicals. Further, consciousness is a process, not a power or force, meaning that conscious self-awareness itself doesn’t DO anything (similar to what Carrier has written about elsewhere, consciousness being able to do stuff by itself is a good description of “magic” or supernaturalism, both of which are fictional constructs). All of which means that even were Dr. Alvaro’s conclusion true, he would still be starting at a deficit in demonstrating that any possible cosmic cause is probably (much less necessarily) an intentional, magical being. I’m disappointed that he hasn’t yet acknowledged this.

You’ve well stated it. I am perplexed as well that this is what is happening.

And I proved Dr. Alvaro’s understanding of Big Bang theory to be thirty years out of date and now false, with expert citations.[8] Pointing this out is not an ad hominem.

I’m a bit disappointed that in the spirit of honest debate, Dr. Alvardo seems to just ignore your evidence (with expert citations) supporting your position on this. It is central to the debate and discussion you are having.

He doesn’t respond with any specific citations in the field of cosmology backing up his claims about what the field currently holds true (consensus) about the Big Bang. He doesn’t attempt to make any real attempts to argue or disagree with anything specific in the article you have cited, and hasn’t responded with an article (citation) of his own that might contrdict that.

All we get from him is his assurance that he follows research in the field of cosmology and regularly converses with some physicists at his university. If we take what he says at face value then it shouldn’t be too much trouble for him to come up with something concrete (an actual citation) of some kind for us to review and consider.

If he can’t seem to locate any such thing on his own, then how much trouble would it be for him to reach out to one of his coleagues who he has had such in depth and relevant discussions on this topic and ask them to point him in the right direction. If he is simply not able to do so (and that is what I’m left to assume until I see otherwise) than that is telling in of itself (IMO).

So until then, his failure to do so reminds me of the author of Luke where (as you’ve pointed out) says “My information comes from good sources”, but never actually reveals any such sources.