That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Rebuttals:I. The Cosmological ArgumentIa. "Existence"There appears to be two different types of existence that have been mentioned when discussing the Cosmological Argument: the existence of objects themselves and the existence of forms of objects. These two types of existence are different because the latter requires a prior and similar form to exist before it (This type of existence can be nicely described as the process of change, the existence of a modified form from another.) while the former requires nothing of the sort. Since these two types of existence are clearly different and the current argument for the first premise uses inductive reasoning, we can not equivocate them as being the same and doing so would be a fallacy of equivocation. [1]In the first premise of the Cosmological Argument, we are talking about the former type of existence, but you have given examples of the latter type. The example of the existence of animate objects beginning can be stated as the assembly of atoms through the mother into a baby. This is clearly not matter coming into existence in the way intended by the first premise, but it is simply an organization of disorganized matter in the form of food and water into an organized creature, a baby; the disorganized matter changed into a baby, viz. it changed forms. The examples you gave for inanimate objects are also examples of changes in forms.Since you have provided examples of different forms and not actual objects coming into existence, I can't say that you have yet adequately validated the Cosmological Argument's first premise. To validate the first premise, you must either give appropriate examples or valid reasoning. (I'm mentioning reasoning here becuse you are not at all bound to an inductive argument to support the first premise.)Ib. The Externality of Causes of ChangeIf the second premise of your argument is only talking about objects or their forms exclusively, then it is correct. Though in the second premise, we must be careful not to confuse the form of an object with the object itself. [a1] The example I'm thinking of that really highlights the potential problems with this argument is atomic decay. An unstable atom does not emit an alpha or beta particle because of some outside force but because it has to by it's own behavior; this means that the atom changes because of its own and internal properties not an external cause. The existence of a new form begins because of an internal property of the object.If the universe's singularity ever changed forms, then we must keep in mind that it could have done so because of its own behavior - like the unstable atom. If you wish to assert with any certainty that it did otherwise, you will need a better argument.II. The Design ArgumentIIa. The Core SyllogismIn the second entry of my appendix, I have rewritten your argument as a syllogism because I was having difficulties attempting to understand it. Please do point out any flaws in it or the critique I will give here. (I'm almost completely certain that my representation of your argument is flawed.)The argument as I understand it is simply a non sequitur because you don't arrive at the conclusion in line 6 from any of the premises. [a2] [2] Could you please more clearly explain this argument?IIb. "We established in the beginning, however, that there must have been an uncaused cause."I genuinely don't remember doing so. If it's simply escaping me and I can't find it, could you quote me agreeing to this? Could you also refer me to your support of this statement?If nothing is found (and my brief search didn't reveal anything), then could you simply explain in the next round?Conclusion:With the problems mentioned in my rebuttal 'Ia', the cosmological argument has not yet been validated, and I still do not understand what Pro intends to say with the Design Argument (and currently stands as unsound). As of this point in the debate, the resolution has yet to be affirmed.Appendix:a1, Externality of Causes Syllogism:1. The cause is necessarily prior to the effect.2. A thing cannot be prior to itself.3. Therefore, a thing can not be it's own cause.a2, Design Argument Syllogism:1. Every change is caused by another.2. This cause could have been changed either accidentally or intentionally.3. Every action is done intentionally which may cause the intended effect or another accidental effect.4. In order to say that all effects are accidental, it must be admitted that those effects must be caused and that any animate beings must only cause accidental effects.5. There is an uncaused cause.6. The effects of this uncaused cause must be intentional. (?)7. This uncaused cause therefore displays intelligence (even if limited).Sources:[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org...(logic)