That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

1a. In response to "What have we observed coming into existence, and what have we found to be their causes?" The universe is composed of two parts: the animate, and the inanimate. Only individual things can properly be said to come into existence. Individuality, however, while most clear in the most sophisticated animals, is decreasingly clear in more basic life-forms, and is most ambiguous in the inanimate. If one should change the matter or form of a lifeless object, is a new object created? The answer to this question is not immediately apparent. Concerning animals however, it is more clear; each animal is a singularity, with a consciousness and animation, which comes into being at a specific point in time. At whatever point an animal does come into existence"either at conception, at birth, or at sometime in between"it does so as an effect, the cause of which is the unification of the progenitors, or in some cases, the reproductive faculties of a single progenitor. Therefore, there is clear account of the creation and cause of the one part of the universe, the animate. Account for the other part, is in one sense more important, as the inanimate part of the universe is prior in time, and therefore is the part which we are concerned with when seeking account for the creation and cause of the universe as a whole, but is definitely more difficult. We must remember that creation is only a kind of change. Change is when a thing ceases to be how it was in someway, and becomes otherwise; it can be divided in these species: creation, destruction, change of quality, change of quantity, and change of place. In nature, it is clear that always a thing undergoes change by some cause, to produce an effect. In the morning, the sun rises, which causes the darkness to undergo change, becoming light. This is most clearly an example of alteration, as the place changes from being unlit to being lit; one could also argue, however, that this is an example of the creation of light, out of no light, but this is a bit confusing, as the individuality of inanimate objects is still a bit unclear. What is clear however, is that all change"excluding creation for now"occurs as the result of some cause. A body does not change from being at rest to being in motion by any reason but by being acted upon. If you think otherwise, the burden of proof is squarely upon your shoulders. One way to resolve the remaining vagueness of creation is to say that concerning the difference between creation and other kinds of change, the individual is only important to living things. That is to say, if a man should change in size, he is still the same man, but if a rock should change in size, it becomes a different rock. If a chair should be moved across the room, it undergoes change in position; the result is that there was a chair over here, which ceased to be, and now there has been created a chair over there. If a house should change colors, a new house has been created. Therefore, any kind of change in non-living things is creation, and all change in nature is seen to have a cause, so all inanimate objects are given account for creation and cause. Therefore, I have given example of things animate and inanimate observed coming into existence with clear causes. If you think there to be anything which to the contrary comes into existence clearly without cause, again, the burden of proof is upon you. 1b. In response to "that those causes are external to the things themselves...what example(s) demonstrates this claim as being true?" This is quite simple I think, and hardly requires example, but instead logic. The cause is necessarily prior to the effect, and a thing cannot be prior to itself. Therefore, if a thing comes into existence, it must do so as the effect of something outside itself. A child that is born requires a parent which is external and before it, and a ball that begins to roll requires a force that is external and before it's rolling. These are, I think, adequate answers to your questions concerning the first portion, and I hope you will find them satisfactory. The answer to whether there is "truly a logical reason that would suggest the cause must be intelligent" is of course the thesis of the second part, concerning design, and so I intend to address it there. 2a. In defense of the "Design Argument." I can see how because of my previous use of "function," and "design," I could be understood as begging the question. When I called something "designed," I did mean explicitly that "the parts all function harmoniously for the sake of some end," and while I think it is nowhere in the nature of non-intelligent things to harmonize things, I think you were right to point out, that there are two ways in which parts can work harmoniously as the cause of an effect: either accidentally or intentionally. If one should witness a rock fall from some height, there is no way, simply by observing the fall, to know whether it's falling is the intentional effect of some cause, or the accidental effect. With this in mind, I will employ a simpler argument. The human body is a harmonized system acting for the sake of an effect, self-preservation. You are right, that the body was formed by means of natural process, a change. Every change is caused by another thing, which either is itself passively in motion on account of something else, or because it is an animal, and therefore has the power of action, to change itself. Every action is is done intentionally for the sake of some effect, and may cause that intended effect, or may cause some other accidental effect. Therefore, in order to say that all inanimate effects are caused accidentally, you have to either say that everything is changing on account of something else, or that the active thing caused the effect accidentally. We established in the beginning, however, that there must have been an uncaused cause. By virtue of it's being uncaused, this would necessarily cause its effect actively, and therefore intentionally. Therefore at the very least, the first cause must be intelligent insofar as is necessary to intend an effect. It is possible I suppose that the effects caused by the first effect of the first cause could be accidental, but some intellect is required for intention. I think the Cosmological argument is now fully sound and valid, I'm interested to hear what you think about that. The second argument I know leaves some explaining to be desired, but I think there is some logic there, and am willing to expound.