A Creator's Existence is Apparent

Firstly, your first question: “Why should we prefer your axiom, “everything that begins to exist has a cause”, to its inverse, “everything that begins to exist need not to have a cause”. I believe everyone should prefer my axiom (it isn’t literally mine, by the way. I did not come up with this) because not a single humanbeing has ever seen something come into existence without a cause. Everything we have observed reveals that everything that begins has a cause. The inverse makes no sense because that's something we've never observed before. Why then would you suddenly suggest such for the origens of the universe? As I asked my contender in the previous debate, can you come up with anything that begins to exist without a cause? It is a ludicrous notion. Things don’t just pop into (or out of) existence just randomly and causeless all the time. We live not in such a chaotic universe, according tot he entire documentation of human history concerning this topic. So, it is indeed apparent, despite some might claim it is not. I am asuming now, but perhaps they can not see the logic and reasoning here because it’s all pointing towards a designer which gets scary for those who hate such a thought. If not this, then you tell me what the reason is, because what is obvious is obvious and what is the truth is the truth. Consider the following: If I show you an apple, and it truly is an apple, but some claim it is a lemon regardless. That doesn’t suddenly mean that it is no longer apparent that it is an apple and therefore we can question whether it is an apple. This is objective truth. Not up for debate despite some might debate about it. Secondly, the math issue. Of course there is a giant debate concerning this. 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. Two things come to mind concerning this subject, being the Golden Ratio and Fractals. These two confirm that everything, from us humans to flowers to animals and so on and so forth (truly, look into the subject if you haven’t it’s quite mindblowing. Like the Mandlebroth set.) hangs upon complex mathematical formulas/patterns. (I’ll give a link for the fractals/Mandelbroth. I asume you’re well known with the Golden Ratio because that is high school material: ) Now, here is the deal: Even if humans would have never existed, these mathematics would still be in place. This means that humans did not create these. They are there regardless of mankind. They are part of the universe, regardless of us humanbeings. In fact humans hang upon this math as well. We merely discovered them, only since the 1980s, but the math has always been there in place (to keep things orderly as it is and has always been). People were even extremely suprised when we discovered this. The suggestion that humans invented/designed this is once again, ludicrous (or shall I say, absolutely ludicrous). It is simply not possible even if all the people in the world would debate about it. It is a matter of truth. Fact. Thirdly, I shall elaborate for you why I believe that complexity implies an intelligent designer. Well, to be frank, that wasn’t quite what I was saying. What I was saying is, that complex design demands and intelligent designer. Here is the logical disconnection, which I’ll show you as per parable: Suppose I took you to mount rushmoore, and I’d tell you, mate, that mountain with the four presidential heads on it came about purely by chance, without a creator, by means of natural laws and natural events. If I would truly try to push this on you, you might even become angry with me. Alas, you’d definitely think I’m an idiot. Yet, you're suggesting that an actual human being can come about by such means, eventhough the DNA of a single cell in the human body is already tons more (irreducibly) complex than that entire mountain with the four presidential/human heads. Another example: If I walk with you on the beach, and we see some ripples in the sand, and you ask me, hey Vince, how did that come to be? And I answer, well mate, that came to be purely by chance, natural laws and natural means. There’s no intelligence behind it. You’d then tell me, alright, thanks friend. We walk further down the beach, and you point at the sand again. There’s a message this time, saying, hey you two loonies. Now, undoubtfully two kids are watching us behind the bushes nearby, pulling a prank on us. But we don’t know that. I proceed to answer your question, saying: well mate, that also came to be purely by chance, natural laws and natural means. There’s no intelligence behind it. (Consider DNA here, which contains a message, language, coded information if you will). Will you once again answer me with, ah yes, I believe you, sounds totally reasonable. Would you?Also, what you are basically doing here, is looking at the message and then questioning me why I think that is designed. Well... if you cannot see that I can't help you. If you can't see the design in humans, dna, flora and fauna, this world (my examples in round 1), then I can't help you. 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. That is both reasonable and logical, and thus obvious despite some people cannot see (or are not willing to see) the obvious. As I’ve stated before, often times people cannot see the obvious, for what ever reason. Doesn’t mean it isn’t obvious. Doesn’t mean my apple isn’t an apple despite people calling it a lemon. See, sir, we’re dealing with truth, facts and logical reasoning here, not with what ifs, unlikely-possibilities and theories without foundation. I don’t dable into the insane and into the paradox. Fourthly, your question “Why does complexity necessarily imply design? and Can you clearly demonstrate how the universe is designed?” I do not know if complexity literally always implies design, some food for thought. But I have demonstrated sufficiently with my examples in the first round and now also in the second round, in my opinion atleast, that there simply is a complex design in many ways and fashions, and I need not repeat myself. Not that complexity implies design, but that there simply is a complex design, which demands a designer. I would like to invite you, to not just look at the universe as if it’s a vaste darkness with asteroids flying about randomly. There is much more to it and I hope I’ve made that crystal clear at this point.Final words for round 2:I realise that after rereading my second post, you might find the "tone" I am writing with a little offensive or harsh. It isn't meant to be offensive but it is certainly meant to be harsh. Let one thing be clear: I respect you as a debate partner and I love the fact that you're debating me. I truly appreciate that and I am looking forward to the next round.