The Big Bang had to have been started by a designer.

I am sorry for my late response; I'll try and respond more promptly next time.Thanks for your compliment. However, you are only three years older than me, so I wouldn't be too surprised with what I can output.In the third round, you have simply repeated your first premise; that you believe that something cannot come from nothing, and therefore, nothing will always lead to nothing, claiming it as an axiomatic truth, and obvious. In the second round, I demonstrated that this premise is unfounded, as the only things we have experience with are created ex materia, and therefore cannot apply the same logic to things created ex nihilo. You have not yet done anything to defend your first premise from my demonstration of unfoundedness other than restating it.As for your use of Until the Sun Dies, this precisely proves my point that the universe was created ex nihilo, and not ex materia. Whether the matter in our universe always existed or not is irrelevant to our debate. We are discussing the causes of the universe, and why you believe it must be an intelligent designer.However ridiculous it may seem to you of the entire universe coming from nothing, claiming that a creator came from nothing and created the universe does nothing to reduce the absurdity. In fact, it only increases it. Which seems more likely to you; at the rudimentary level of the universe, something extremely complex (a mind?) existing, or instead, a very basic, unconscious natural system which we are unaware of?Multiple big bangs, universes, and other natural causes are simply other possibilities for the beginning of the universe than an intelligent designer. You are attempting to prove that an intelligent designer created the universe, so you must eliminate all other possibilities of natural causes that could lead to the universe as we know it in order for your argument to hold. You must prove why it definitely must be an intelligent designer, and not anything else.In response to "This would be just extending the process and origin tracing further.", I ask you:If you speak of these other possibilities as extending the train of causality, what exempts an intelligent designer from extending the process of origin tracing, and not an intelligent designer (one of the many possibilities)?It is true; I cannot disprove a creator to you. That's not the point of this debate; you are trying to prove an intelligent designer to me, and I must refute your claims. A creator is, indeed, an unfalsifiable hypothesis, along with an infinite amount of others (Like Bertrand Russell's Teapot: http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_teapot). The simple fact that it cannot be disproven gives it no merit, and is hardly the point of this discussion. You are trying to prove to me the existence of an intelligent designer as being the initial cause of the universe, which is, by all means, a scientific claim.The definition of science is:"the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.https://www.google.com...Science is a lens through which we view everything in a logical, empirical way. The beginning of the universe is no exception to this. Science is the study of what is, how it got there, and how it behaves. You are attempting to base your claim on logic, and observations of the world, so it is a scientific claim, and dismissing other scientific truths is not consistent.SummaryI contend that Pro's first premise is unfounded, and he has done nothing so far to defend it other than state the premise as an axiomatic truth.Further, for Pro's argument to work, he must disprove all other possibilities (natural causes) and prove why it must be an intelligent designer that caused the universe, and why an intelligent designer is free from the chain of causality, but not the natural causes he claims are an extension of this train.