That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

1a. I think your assessment of the first premise is incorrect. By no means can an individual animal be called simply the formal rearrangement of inanimate matter, because the properties are entirely contrary. Of course, an animal's coming into existence is "clearly not matter coming into existence," but this is not at all what is "intended by the first premise." It is known and has been stated here, that the quantity of matter in the universe is constant, and so there is no natural example of matter coming into existence. It cannot be ignored, however, that an animal's coming into existence is more than formal change. The properties of an animal are fundamentally different than a non-living form, considering growth, locomotion, and perception. So the generation of a living thing must necessarily be considered an instance of "actual objects coming into existence," whence that thing did not exist at all. The matter did exist, but in an entirely different essence. To say that an animal is simply another form of the matter that pre-existed it is to say that an inanimate is essentially the same as the animate, which is clearly folly. Concerning the inanimate things, however, you are right, that the only real change seems to be formal. This result of this though, because everything at one point was united in one material object, is that there is no difference in existence between all material things that exist in the universe, which to common sense seems absurd. So in order to preserve at all the individuality in substance of different things in the universe, one has to consider formal change as creation. That was the essence of my argument, but for the sake of conversation, I can operate also under the conditions in which you said you'd agree with the argument. If the argument is only concerned with formal change, it still proves that every observed change has an external cause. I think this is even true in the example you've brought up of the atom. Atoms come in dichotomy, between the stable and the unstable. It's true, that unstable atoms undergo change, and they do so by an internal property, but that internal property is itself the effect of the atom's genesis. The number and variety of sub-atomic particles that happen to become involved in the atom at the time of it's formation directly cause the internal property which causes the change. Those particles were external, and their cause--however far removed--the big bang, was the most materially external. In this way, the cause of the cause is external, and the cause of the cause of the effect is definitely properly also called the cause of the effect. This is the way with many objects, that the external cause might be separated by another cause. So then, I don't think your atom example has proved anything at all. And I think you should remember, that I presented an argument for why the universe must have had a true coming into existence, rather than simply a change in form. If this is true, and what you're claiming, that in nature there is no true coming into existence, but only change in form, is also true, then the necessary origin of the universe is entirely unnatural. This is another inference to the extranatural first cause of the universe. 2a. This is the proper version of the syllogism I think. 1. Every change has an external cause. 2. Every action is done intentionally, but may cause an intended or accidental effect, due to unforeseen causes. 3. To say that every effect is accidental, is to say that everything is passively occurring, or that any action done was done accidentally. 4. There is an uncaused cause 5. Being uncaused, the first cause must cause it's effect actively, rather than passively. 6. The first effect is intended, or accidental. 7. There are no other causes contemporary with the first cause, and therefore no unforeseen causes. 8. The first effect was intended. 9. This uncaused cause therefore displays intelligence (even if limited) 2b. This was just the result of my arguing that the universe has a true beginning, which you did not object to, and what we're still contestng, that everything has an external cause. I do think I've suggested solutions to your contensions.