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

Once more, you have no base upon which to claim that something cannot come from nothing, because while this might not make intuitive sense, everything around us has been created ex materia, and so applying the same intuitive logic to things created ex nihilo (the universe) is not consistent. As you and I have said before, humans (besides physicists) have no experience with things created ex nihilo. Therefore, any claims we make on causation of things created ex nihilo (something cannot come from nothing) is unfounded.Because the first premise of your argument (Something cannot come from nothing) is invalid, your argument fails to work from the start. However, even if we assume that your first premise is true, there is nothing to indicate that an intelligent designer is more likely the first cause of the universe than some other cause. You may claim that something coming from nothing is absurd, but saying that a creator came from nothing to create everything from nothing does nothing to reduce the absurdity. In fact, to me it seems more likely for a basic, natural force to be at the root of everything than a complex mind. Considering that we have no evidence that a mind can exist outside of a physical substrate, it seems to me much more plausible that at the rudimentary level of everything, an unconscious, basic force to be existent rather than an intelligent mind existing at such basic levels. What could possibly lead to this? Why would such a thing exist at the basic levels of everything, especially given that complex arrangements of matter are needed for minds, at least as we know them.Saying that a conscious mind is at the base of everything is neither provable nor disprovable, and therefore has no merit. It is just as likely that Bertrand Russell's teapot, a pink unicorn, goblins, elves, whatever you want to call it, was at the base of the universe, since none of these are provable or disprovable either.Claiming that causes other than an intelligent designer extend the chain of causality makes an intelligent designer no more likely, as an intelligent designer too, would extend this chain. If you claim the designer is eternal, why couldn't any of the other causes be eternal as well?Comparing the universe to a laptop is not a good analogy, because while we do know that a laptop was created by an intelligent mind, we don't know that the universe was created by an intelligent mind. That certainly doesn't exclude the possibility, but that's hardly the point. you are trying to prove the existence of a creator, and it not being provable or disprovable earns it no merit.ConclusionI conclude that while an intelligent designer is certainly possible, it is no more likely to exist than other possible causes of the universe, and any conditions you may wish to place on the designer or other causes (Extending the origins), must be applied to all possible causes, so an intelligent designer is no more likely.As I have pointed out, a designer may even be less likely than other causes due to a designer's complexity, and the incompatibility with the basicness of existence. I therefore contend that the big band must not have, but could have been caused by an intelligent designer. It isn't required, and certainly isn't provable.My Thanks to the ProI apologize if I came off as rough or harsh during this debate. I simply have no sense of social etiquette when I am focused on deconstructing an argument. I thank you for this debate, and have enjoyed in immensely.