That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Clarifications:For the sake of this debate, I will assume that by "logical", you in fact mean both logically sound and valid, viz. that the conclusion logically follows from the premises and the premises can also be demonstrated as true - either through reason or observation.Rebuttals:I. The Cosmological ArgumentMy only problem with this argument still comes from Vinnie's first premise, though in this debate I will not go on this silly adventure about "why should we prefer the axiom to it's negation". Instead, I will simply ask for your reasoning that makes the premise true - a plain requisite for the resolution to be affirmed. What examples do you and Vinnie refer to when talking about things coming into existence? What have we observed coming into existence, and what have we found to be their causes?You bring up another point against one of my contentions, specifically that "the cause of the natural objects must be external to those things" (or in the earlier statement "[the original state of the universe] must have had an external cause"). Not only have you and Vinnie claimed that things that begin to exist have causes for doing so, but you are also willing to make the claim that those causes are external to the things themselves. Again - I must inquire - what example(s) demonstrates this claim as being true?Lastly, after you manage to produce satisfactory answers to the questions I have provided, there is still the matter regarding the nature of this cause that must be adequately discussed. You and Vinnie contend that this cause must clearly be intelligent, but is there truly a logical reason that would suggest the cause must be intelligent?II. The Design ArgumentFirstly, I want to point out that you must tread carefully when stating that systems have functions because the word "function" can imply a design. I don't believe this is what you were intending, but it seems that your argument is begging the question. [1] You describe systems has having functions and then use these systems as examples of "design". You assume they're designed to prove that they're designed. (Again, I don't believe this is what you meant, but it does appear to be so.)Later in your argument, you claim that "even the celestial spheres" seem to work at the end of producing life. It must be pointed out that this is an illusory correlation. [2] Given the millions of solar systems that operate in a similar way but are unfit to harbor life, there is no reason to suggest that our celestial bodies were specifically designed to produce life. The correlation you have "found" is merely accidental.Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that things with apparent "functions" are "designed" by an intelligent entity. You gave the example of the human body striving to reach the ends of self preservation, but this is an example of something which did not come about from the means of an intelligent entity. The human body evolved in accordance with natural rules in order to self-preserve and replicate. This process continued for the sake that it could and by natural laws did. You and Vinnie claim that you need an intelligent designer for something to strive for some end, but the example of the human body clearly demonstrates that simple rules are adequate for systems (and consequently "functions") to form.Requests:Though I believe I responded to the main points you gave in your interpretation of the design argument, I think I need to ask for you to elaborate more fully. I don't quite understand the structure of this particular argument, and it would be helpful if you could elucidate it to me so I can completely understand what you're attempting to say.Conclusion:(In their current states, the Cosmological Argument is sound but has not been demonstrated to be valid, and the Design Argument is not sound.)For either argument to have any merit, it is required of Pro to answer the questions I have provided in my rebuttals and respond to the points I have just raised. As the debate is still young, Pro has not adequately affirmed the resolution. I wait excitedly for Pro's response.Personal Remarks:I always feel like I'm missing something when I post a response so if there is something missing, please simply point it out. My deep apologies for such a late and rushed response. I had finals this week so I was frequently too distracted and tired to work on this response; I hope you can forgive my transgression.Sources:[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] - https://en.wikipedia.org...