That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

CONTRA DRCEREAL, I look forward to a fun and productive debate. The main points of contention in the previous debate were, without a doubt, concerning causality, the complexity of natural systems, and the role of mathematics in modeling the universe. Before addressing these three points directly, however, it is necessary to establish the first principle. Vinnie_Cross_Briet started in the right place: saying that in order for there to be a creator, the universe must have a point at which it is properly said to have come into existence. This claim is widely accepted by the scientific community, with the big-bang theory being the most popular model of how exactly that genesis took place. You did not take issue with the universe having a definite beginning in the previous debate, but in case anyone should have reservations about this, a few words. Some speculate about a material existence before the big-bang, but even that existence itself would have to have had a beginning. Because the big-bang is the first cosmic occurrence, any prior existence would necessarily have to have existed in a constant state, either in motion or at rest. The big-bang occurs as a result of all the universe' mass and energy coinciding at a point, which means that any prior material or energetic existence would have to exist at a distance. Therefore the material would have had to been in motion, to traverse distance and arrive at a point. It could not, however, have existed in a state of constant motion, according to the nature of motion over an infinite duration. The things moving towards a single point must have velocity, and cannot possibly have a velocity greater than the speed of light. As velocity is equal to distance divided by time, and our time is infinite, the only way that the limit of our distance divided by time, that is, velocity, as the time approaches infinity can not be equal to zero, is if the distance is also infinite. So, as the things must have some velocity, the distance must be infinite. This poses an impossibility, however: the things must cross the infinite distance in order to all arrive at the same point, however an infinite distance necessarily has no boundaries, and to cross a distance is to go from one boundary to the other, therefore an infinite distance by definition cannot be crossed. It is for this reason, that the universe must have had a true origin, and cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time. With that established, I'll comment on your three contentions with Vinnie. Firstly, Vinnie claimed that "Everything that begins to exists has a cause," which I also hold to be true. You responded by asking "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?'" Vinnie replied that this is an indisputable observation of nature, which you did not disagree with. You instead disputed the claim that the universe as a whole acts in accordance with the laws of nature. This is where I will take up the dispute. There seems to me really no way to posit that the universe as a whole acts in a way contrary to the individual objects within the universe, simply because there is no real distinction. When one says "the universe," it is the same as saying "nature." The Latin "universus" simply means "combined into one whole." The universe is only the collection of natural things, considered as one whole. I don't think there is another logical way to view it. Therefore one must say that the universe as a whole abides by physic laws, because it is the collection of natural objects, all of which abide by the laws. Therefore, the universe in its first state, which is to say, the first natural object/objects in the collection, must have had an external cause. And as the universe is the collection of natural things, that is, things of material, time and motion, anything external to it must be immaterial, extratemporal, and unchanging. These are the most basic qualities of the creator. You did bring up an objection to this idea: "If we are to believe that the universe, the container of natural objects, behaves like natural objects, then why should we not also believe that a creator would also behave the same way as natural objects," but I think this definitely has been resolved, in light of the fact that the universe is nothing more than natural objects, and that the cause of the natural objects must be external to those things, and therefore outside the physic laws. For these reasons, the existence of an external first cause is not only more logical, but logically necessary. The resolution, however, is not quite reached, as nothing has been said to necessitate the intelligent nature of the first cause. This brings us to your second contention with Vinnie. Secondly, Vinnie posited that a design inherently requires a designer, and presented three of what he took to be examples of design in nature. You at no point denied that a thing's being designed does in fact imply a designer, instead you contended with his examples of design. The contention progressed to the point where Vinnie was insisting that complexity of a system is what implies design, and therefore designer, while you were asking what it is exactly about complexity that implies design. I think this is not quite the right direction to go when demonstrating design in nature. The essence of design is function, not complexity. Something is called "designed," in virtue of the parts all functioning harmoniously for the sake of some end. I think this is what Vinnie was getting at with his first two examples: the apple tree and the body. The body is the most clear example. Each organ within the body has a unique function, producing a specific effect. The effects of all the organs work harmoniously in the system of the body, to produce the aggregate effect of self-preservation. The idea then, is that only a being of intelligence can employ things as parts of a system, which were not previously harmonious. Simply put, the rational animal is the only natural object capable of producing systems and processes, from inharmonious components; therefore, any system formed independently of man must be the effect of some external intelligence. The whole of the ecosystem, and even the celestial spheres, is a system producing the aggregate effect of life, and independent of human action, so therefore must be the effect of some intelligence external to the universe, as man is the only intelligent inhabitant. This is what necessitates that the previously mentioned immaterial, extratemporal, and unchanging first cause is also intelligent. Thus, these reasons sufficiently arrive at my resolution that the existence of an intelligent first cause of the material world is more logical than not; but in addition to that, I say that they absolutely necessitate it. The third contention concerning Mathematics is very worth-mentioning however, and very much related. Whether Mathematics are properly called "invented," or "discovered" is really inconsequential, because the thing that Mathematics describes, pattern, can in no way be considered projected on the universe. Certain natural phenomena can be described in Mathematic terms because a pattern inherently exists in the occurrences. The reason certain phenomena do not conform to certain expressions is because the pattern modeled by the expression simply does not exist in the phenomenon. What exactly pattern implies about intelligence, I'm not certain. One could argue, perhaps, that pattern is a form of harmony, and therefore requires intelligence, but I am not sure whether that's correct. Regardless however, it is not necessary to the argument. I believe my resolution to have been definitely reached, by resolving the first two contentions of your prior debate. I hope you will find my interpretations of said contentions to be correct.