The evidence from the planning

Does this actually mean that the physico-theological view is built on the cosmological view?
If so, what is the value of the physico-theological view? All that needs to be clarified is whether the cosmological view is correct or not, and according to this, to know whether there is a God
Or we can actually say that the physico-theological view proves that if there is indeed a creator, he is also intelligent, and does not prove at all that there is indeed a creator

Why is it built on the cosmological view? The physico-theological view is that in the physical system known to us, complex things require an external designer, and do not design themselves. The cosmological view is that in the system known to us, everything that exists (regardless of its complexity) requires an external creator and does not create itself.

I probably didn't phrase it properly. If the reason we don't apply the statement "every complex thing has a designer" to God himself is the fact that he is his own cause, unlike other things that have a cause, then we assume that he is his own cause, unlike other things that are not their own causes. But this issue stems from the cosmological argument. The moment I disagree with the cosmological argument, I will come to the conclusion that God himself also needs an explanation for why he is complex, or alternatively - I won't need a reason for why the singular point is complex. Hope that helped.

You seem to be confusing the arguments themselves (which are two different arguments) with the answer to the question about them (which is one answer). The arguments themselves differ in that one proves existence and the other complexity. There is a question about both arguments as to why the arguments are not valid for God, and to this question there is one answer that is valid for both arguments – and that is that the arguments are valid only within the system known to us and not outside of it.