A Creator's Existence is Apparent

Clarification: Human beings, as objects within the universe, can only make observations of other objects that are also contained within the universe. I will be calling objects contained within the universe “natural objects” from this point onward. Furthermore, since it might not have been clear, when I say "complexity", I include the ideas of systems and processes. Pro may not have known that so that may have been the potential source of any confusion. This means that anywhere where I say "complex" or "complexity", Pro, or anyone reading this, can assume I mean "complexity, processes, and systems". Rebuttals: I The Cosmological Argument Axiom When Pro states “...because not a single human being has ever seen something come into existence without a cause.”, he assumes that the universe behaves the same way as natural objects do. Though I couldn’t come up with an example of something beginning to exist without a cause, I also couldn’t come up with a reason for why we should treat the universe’s existence as the same as the existence of natural objects. The universe is not necessarily a natural object, it contains natural objects. My question to Pro on this matter is this: 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? II Was Math “discovered” or “invented”? Pro has demonstrated, with the examples of the golden ratio and fractals, that mathematics seems to model the complexity of the universe very well, but he has again failed to demonstrate how this modeling implies that mathematics is embedded within the universe. I would like Pro to consider this for a moment: Mathematics was invented by humans to describe the universe and the universe remains completely independent to mathematics. If Pro were to consider this, then he would quickly realize that mathematics is nothing more than a model that describes the universe and that things such as fractals and the golden ratio are only products of beautiful modeling of something wonderfully complex. If Pro wishes to make it apparent that mathematics is embedded within the universe, then he must provide better arguments than “there are tons of people who just do not want there to be a creator, also in the scientific field, so they'll search for any alternative theories and what not” or the products of mathematics. III Complexity Implies Design I will be combining my rebuttals of Pro’s “complexity implies design” and “complexity implies a designer” because he has stated that his reasoning for both is the same. His argument breaks down to the former mentioned, “complexity implies design”. Though Pro claims he has, Pro has still failed to provide any substantial amount of reasoning for why complexity actually implies design. In round one, Pro gave examples which he believed would demonstrate how the universe was “designed”. As I stated in my original rebuttal to this argument, Pro has not demonstrated that the universe is designed, but rather, he demonstrated that it’s complex. With each example that he gave, Pro described a system (or process) that occurs within the natural universe, and after each example, he explains how it is a system (which I agree with him on). But then after he explains that each is a system or process, he decides to label it a “design”. Why? Why does Pro automatically assume that these complex systems must have been designed? Furthermore in round two, Pro made the remark “So if everything is complexely designed with math and processess and systems just as we observe o so clearly all around us, then that simply indicates that everything was created by an intelligent creator, as per the syllogism”. He assumes two things in this remark: 1.) he assumes that complexity, systems, and processes imply design and 2.) he assumes that the universe was “designed” with mathematics. Pro has failed to demonstrate why either of these assumptions is preferable to others or how either is “apparent” so far in this debate.My questions for Pro regarding this topic in the debate will be the same as last round because he has failed to answer it adequately: Why does complexity imply design? How are you making this leap from complex systems to designs? I fail to see the logical connection that you are making here, and I would be grateful for an in-depth explanation. IV Pro’s Repetitive Analogies Pro has continuously made analogies throughout the debate that try to connect the universe to a creator. These analogies are “No robot without a robot engineer”, “No building without a builder”, etc. I’m going to respectfully request that Pro restrains from making analogies that convey the same meaning as conveyed in these because they add nothing to the debate at this point. Not only are they repetitive, but for them to have any meaning, a conclusion must already be assumed to be true. Using these analogies in any context within this debate could be argued to be on the verge of being inappropriate. Conclusion: Pro has again failed to demonstrate why any of his positions or axioms should be preferable to others. As I stated in the last round, he must make at least one argument completely apparent for the resolution to be true. Since he has failed to do this so far, I would claim that he has failed to prove the resolution at this point in the debate.