The question is: by what/Whom was it created.
You are falsely assuming that a creator is necessary. See post 53.
The fact that something exists does not necessarily imply a creator. Your logic is based on a false assumption.
No, you're falsely assuming that the causal need for a creator is nullified, simply on the basis of the double slit experiment, when the "falsification of the law of causality" explanation for the results of that experiment is one of the more unlikely and controversial explanations for it. Much more likely is just that we don't understand the underlying nature of the mechanism of causality presented in those results. Ergo, you are drawing conclusions as if they were confirmed, but doing so on the basis of extremely insufficient grounds. Ergo, your logic is fallacious.
[[The fact that something exists does not necessarily imply a creator. Your logic is based on a false assumption.]]
Yes it does! it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a creator is needed and that naturalism is absoluely incapable of creating hte intelligently designed object in question. Who or what hte intellgient causer is is not the quesiton, but rather establishign beyond a reasoanble doubt that an itnelleignet agent was behind the causation of the object in question is what is beign established. If nature is incapable, and could not possibly have caused the evidence we are examining, then there is only one other possible cause- an intelligent causation- it’s either caused naturally, or intelligently- there is no other reasonable explanation