Re: Scientific proof that God exists?

Your "countless examples" consist only of man-made machines. What about machines that are not man-made? Can you show that they also have makers? There are certainly many more examples of machines that are not man-made than there are of man-made machines, so if it were actually true that you could use odds to prove something in this case, you would still be wrong.

Can you show even one example of a machine that you absolutely know does not have a maker? Our vast experience is that machines have makers, without even one example of a machine not having a maker.

So here are examples of non-manmade machines with no maker: ribosomes (protein synthesizer), clouds (electrical generator), rivers (rock crusher), rain (irrigation). Of course I could go on and this list would be much longer than your list of machines with makers. Our vast experience is that most machines do not have makers, but you choose to ignore them in order to support your premise.

Prove that these machines have no maker.

Your entire argument rests on the claim that "our vast experience is that machines have makers". I have shown that you cannot identify the maker(s) of most machines, so you can't say that "our vast experience is that machines have makers". You believe that "machines have makers" because you are limiting "machines" to only those that are man-made. The problem arises when you generalize "all man-made machines have makers" to "all machines have makers". That's like saying black and white are shades of gray, therefore all colors are shades of gray.