That the Existence of a Creator is More Logical

Rebuttals:I. The Beginning of the UniverseThis argument appears to be based on the assumption that "that any prior material or energetic existence would have to exist at a distance". For this argument to be valid, it would appear that this premise needs to be valid. To begin my examination of this premise, I must inquire: What prior material and energy are you talking about in this premise? and What is this material and energy "at a distance" from?I'm sorry that I'm responding to this argument so late in the debate because I had thought I already did. It appears I have not done so so I will ask these questions now. (I implore you to be thorough in your response due to the lack of another chance.)II. The Cosmological ArgumentIIa. "Object" and "Form"To clear up any ambiguity in our discussion, I will clearly define what I mean by "objects" and "forms". The first and easiest term to explain is the term "form". My "form" is equivalent to your "object". When I talk of an animate "form", you would say an animate "object". Lastly, my "object" is equivalent to "natural object" or "matter". I will continue to use these terms in my rebuttals because it's convenient, but keep these definitions in mind.(So then - e.g., when I say you are falsely equivocating objects and forms, I mean you are falsely equivocating matter and objects.)IIb. Interpretation of the First PremiseThe first premise says that "everything that begins to exist has a cause". I assumed this meant "objects that begin to exist have causes" because if it did not mean this, then the Cosmological Argument is committing another fallacy. It would be inducing that the existence of the universe (i.e. all matter, energy, time, etc.) must have had a cause because forms that begin to exist have causes; this is a fallacy of hasty generalization. [1] Though it is true that we have observed that forms have causes for their existences, we can not immediately say that the same is true for all objects as well.I contend that my interpretation of the Cosmological Argument is therefore correct because if it weren't, it would be fallacious by design. Both of us wish to discuss the strongest forms of the arguments concerning a creator so I think my interpretation is appropriate.IIc. "Existence"As I said in the last round, the examples you gave to support the first premise are examples of forms and not objects. (Remember my definitions.) You even admit that: "Of course, an animal's coming into existence is 'clearly not matter coming into existence' ... " You then go on to assert that matter wasn't the subject of the first premise. My objection to this claim is given in my rebuttal "IIb".Regarding this point, I see a dichotomy: 1.) we assume that the first premise is talking about forms (and objects), or2.) we assume that the first premise is only talking about objects.(The "3rd" case being that the premise is talking about both objects and forms would be subject to the same criticism mentioned in "IIb".)If 1 is the case, then the premise commits a hasty generalization. If 2 is the case, then the examples you have provided are still not adequate enough to validate the premise (for using the examples would be unintentionally committing a fallacy of equivocation - something mentioned in the prior round). Of either of these cases, I think 2 has more chances to succeed (as it is sound) so I encourage you to pursue different means of validating it in the last round.IId. The Externality of Causes of ChangeYou contend that since the cause of the internal property of the atom was external, we must then say that - ultimately - the cause of the emission of an alpha or beta particle must also be external. This would be true under ordinary circumstances, but I think we can both agree that we're discussing an extraordinary topic.You are contending that the original cause was uncaused and that that cause was external. Your proof for the externality of the causes of change - as in the case of the atom - relies on there being a cause for an internal property. Do you see the problem? If you are to claim that there is an "uncaused cause" (specifically one related to change) of the universe, then you must also admit that that cause may be an internal property of the universe. Ergo, if the universe were to change states, then we can not assume that the cause was external to it but that it could be either internal or external.I do not at all concede that there is an "uncaused cause", but if there was, then it defeats the proposition that changes in form can not be the effect of a purely internal property of an object (in this case, the singularity).III. The Design ArgumentIIIa. Line 2 of the Syllogism [a1]You specify in this line of the syllogism that every "action" is done intentionally and may cause accidental effects "due to unforeseen causes". Let it be noted that this premise is talking about action rather than causation.If you are going to contend that the premise is talking about causation, then it is blatantly untrue. We know that there are causes that are not intended. E.g., space-time exists, yet it is not space-time's "intention" to allow warps in space which create the effect known as gravity. The effect of gravity is accidentally caused by the existence of space-time because space-time is not intelligent and therefore can not have intention.IIIb. Line 5 of the Syllogism [a2]I must inquire to what this premise means. What is the distinction between "active" and "passive" causation? and Why is this first cause's effects necessarily "active"?IIIc. Line 7 of the Syllogism [a3]I assume that this premise works in conjunction with the second to produce the next line (line 8) in the syllogism, i.e. "The first effect was intended." As I said in "IIIa", the second premise is concerned with actions not all causes. Therefore, this line in the syllogism implicitly assumes that the first effect was an "action". This means that, since the conclusion of the syllogism in line 8 is that the first effect was intended, the entire syllogism merely begs the question. It implicitly assumes that the first effect was an "action" to demonstrate that the first effect was intended.It has still not been demonstrated that this first effect was an "action". For this argument to be validated, you must demonstrate how the first effect was an action.Conclusion:The Cosmological Argument at this time in the debate has yet to be properly validated, and the Design Argument has been demonstrated as being unsound. Because of these issues, it has not yet been demonstrated that their was a necessary, "external" cause to the existence of the universe, and it has not yet been demonstrated that this cause was in any way intelligent.The resolution has yet to be affirmed.Appendix:a1, Line 2 of the Design Argument Syllogism:"2. Every action is done intentionally, but may cause an intended or accidental effect, due to unforeseen causes."a2, Line 5 of the " " ":"5. Being uncaused, the first cause must cause it's effect actively, rather than passively."a3, Line 7 of the " " ":"7. There are no other causes contemporary with the first cause, and therefore no unforeseen causes."Sources:[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org...