A Creator's Existence is Apparent

First, You can safely say that the universe behaves like natural objects because the universe is part of this nature. It isn’t constantly popping in and out of existence but behaves exactly as natural objects, according to what we see/experience. It has always been like that. Why think it might not in a few years from now? So just like any natural object, it doesn’t begin to exist without a cause. The universe is tied to the natural laws just as any natural object as per your description. Our universe is not ouside of our universe but within our universe; or rather, it is our universe, our universe is part of our universe, naturally, and to our experience it behaves to our natural laws, which also is nothing but logical. You’re trying to tell me that our universe, time, space and matter, aren’t natural objects? Well, they aren’t, they are not literally objects but they are natural components. Part of the nature. The universe -is- the laws of nature, etc, so naturally it abides to them. How could it not? Is our universe some unpredictable chaos-show to you? That is not what our universe is, according to emperical data and human experience. Second, Mathematics isn’t invented by humans, that’s an absolutely ludicrous statement. The TERM mathematics was invented by humans, sure, but how in the world can you interpret me like that? We indeed could’ve given the mathematics the term cat-and-cow-mathics but the math would still be in place. We’re not here to discuss the term, but the mathematics is an actual thing in ths universe. Saying otherwise only displays a lack of knowledge. I’m not a P.hD guy to explain this in great detail right here but there are P.hD Mathematicians or scientists of other fields who do in great length. I suggest you study the matter. This universe hangs upon complex mathematical formulas despite the term we humans give the deal. You’re creating a gigantic strawman here. Also, when I said that tons of people debate the matter because they don’t want there to be a God wasn’t an argument on my behalve to demonstrate that this universe hangs upon complex math. What another ludicrous statement, and what another gigantic strawman. I just did a guess why people debate the matter, because I really have no clue why people debate the matter. The fact is this universe hangs upon complex mathematical patters. Please look at the mandelbroth/fractal video I linked. Watch it from second 1 to the final. Sorry but I hate the strawmans. I find them dirty. You pull what I say completely out of context. Did humans invent the fact that one apple and apple make two apples by the way? Sure, we made up the terms one and two, but regardless of what terms we give to it, one apple and one apple make 2 apples. We can say cow apple plus cow apple makes cowcow apple if you want. This is semantics and you know this has no place in this debate. Even if humans never came to be, one apple and one apple makes two apples. We gave the term tree to a tree but we didn't invent the tree. Thirdly, Let me rephrase stuff to how I phrased it initially. We (apparently not you and many others. But luckily many do) see a clear and obvious design in the universe. I’ve given you some good examples of this. You say I haven't, I say I have, you say I did a poor job, I say you simply fail to understand on your own accord. Now, when there’s a design, there simply has to be a designer. Why? Look at my arguments and the first and second round. That is both logical and reasonable. All of this was clearly explained in my first and second round and I am not going to repeat myself. You keep trying to change the words I’ve been phrasing and give your own spin to things, but let’s keep it simple. I simply point back towards my first and second round and I fear for the next rounds. This gets really tiresome and unpleasant. You either don’t understand what I am saying or you are trolling with me. “Though Pro claims he has, Pro has still failed to provide any substantial amount of reasoning for why complexity actually implies design.” (quote from Con) What kind of reasoning are you looking for? What is your standard of reasoning? Because I find that my first and second round are packed to the rim with reason and logic, where as you’ve been lacking both reason and logic from here (Netherlands) all the way to Australia and this is frustrating. You’re not being intellectually honest with both me and yourself, So, when I say a lot of reasonable and logical things, you can’t just say “Pro hasn’t given enough reason.” That’s absurd. “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” (quote from Con) Complex systems and processes, that’s like the definition of design… see, what are you asking from me? You think I am not reasonable and logic but your reasoning and logic seems to come from Mars in my perspective. What is design then according to you? “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.”(quote from Con) No I have not failed this. You might have failed to understand. Again, I redirect you to my second round. “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.” Again, no, I haven’t failed anything. You fail to comprehend. I’ve stated over and over that it’s a very fair and logical reasoning, that when ever there’s a complex design, there must be a designer. It is the epitome of obviousness and I’ve given clear examples for this. Fourthly, I can do these things just like you do them. No, YOU have been repetive in declining reason and logic. It’s as if you got your own definition of reason and logic, where blue is red and a circle is square. How can we possible have a pleasant debate like this? Conclusion Pro is making strawmans, pulls things out of context and either has no sufficient knowledge to debate concerning these matters or is simply trolling. My respect towards him as a debate partner is dwindling. The intellect is far-fetched. I am astonished. Con will undoubtfully use the fact that I'm slightly losing my cool in debate as argument against the existence of a creator. I find that my first and second round still overthrow everything which Con has said, however. His third round is extremely poor. He's asking for a fictituous standard/definition of reason and logic while displaying unreason and non-logic himself. Stop attacking me for not displaying sense and logic when it is obviously there, in the first and second round.