A Creator's Existence is Apparent

Clarification:For the resolution to be true, Pro's arguments must be apparent to everyone who examines them. This is a very simple observation because Pro uses his arguments to imply the validity of the resolution. For his arguments to be apparent, his conclusions within those arguments must also be apparent, and for those conclusions to be apparent so must his axioms. If his axioms were too weak or didn't have much reasoning behind their being chosen over others, then we can safely conclude that whichever argument that uses those axioms is not apparent and that, consequently, fails to prove the resolution.Rebuttals: I. The Cosmological ArgumentAs stated in my clarification, every axiom Pro uses to build this argument must be apparent for the argument to prove the resolution. My first question to Pro is this: Why should we prefer your axiom, "Everything that begins to exists has a cause", to its inverse, "Everything that begins to exist need not have a cause"? You have so far given no concrete reasoning for why your axiom is so "apparent" which means that the conclusion you base this specific argument on is not apparent and therefore fails to prove the resolution.Furthermore, your first observation of the universe is not necessarily true. There is currently a giant debate within the field of mathematics on whether or not mathematics was "invented" or "discovered" by humans. If mathematics was invented, then we know that the complexity of the universe is not determined by "mathematical patterns and formulas" and that math is just our interpretation of the universe. If Pro were to use this as an argument to support that the universe is complex, then he must demonstrate that mathematics is, indeed, discovered like he claims.Lastly, I implore Pro to elaborate more on why he believes that "complexity implies an intelligent creator". Pro claims that "There would be a huge logical disconnection there" if we were to assume that, as he puts it, "non-intelligence" caused the universe to exist so my second question would be: What is this "logical disconnection" that would exist if we were to assume the cause of the universe is "non-intelligent"? II. The Design ArgumentWith statements such as "All sorts of things happen in systematic and orderly ways, a design.", "It is clearly designed.", and "We also have the nervous SYSTEM, clearly design." it seems that Pro is trying to make an equivalence with complexity and design. Pro has indeed demonstrated that the universe is complex but has failed to demonstrate how it is designed or how complexity somehow implies design. Since Pro's equivalence with complexity and design has failed to be apparent and since Pro has failed to demonstrate how the universe is a design, the conclusion reached in this argument has failed to be apparent.My two questions to Pro regarding this argument are the following: Why does complexity necessarily imply design? and Can you clearly demonstrate how the universe is designed?Conclusion:I have just demonstrated that neither Pro's "Cosmological Argument" or "Design Argument" are necessarily "apparent" which means that, at this stage in the debate, Pro has failed to prove the resolution using either argument. If Pro wishes to prove the resolution, then he must either answer the questions that I have highlighted above or must bring new points into the debate to be considered.