[[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
Yes it does! it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a creator is needed
Particle - antiparticle creation from nothing spontaneously happens all the time. No creator is necessary. The premise that you support is wrong.
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
Luckily for our discussion, nature is perfectly capable of existing. The theory that has been falsified is the theory that an intelligent cause is needed. No cause is needed at all.