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.
Why do you suggest that my entire argument... After all, the topic is scientific proof. The "machine" point hasn't delved into much science, yet.
If you come upon a machine, and you question about its maker, you have 3, basic, possibilities:
1. You know who the maker is;
2. You don't know who the maker is;
3. You don't know if it has a maker.
When you look at the machines of the universe, you can tell they are machines, because they use the same principles in their operation as the machines made by people. In fact, they use kinds of principles of people-machines, that people haven't thought to use, yet. But it is all machinery, right? It all uses principles that would classify it as machinery, right?
The thing that we are really looking for is number 3, above. Have we ever found a machine that we have proven that it doesn't have a maker? Like the Antikythera mechanism, we don't know if it has a maker or not. Could be "yes," could be "no." We don't have proof either way. Similarly, we don't have proof for any of the machines of nature. The closest we can come to proof is that they are all machines.
The thing we DO have proof for, is that we KNOW of the makers of many machines. We know who makes cars, computers, airplanes, and all kinds of other machines. We even know who fashions spoons, thereby manipulating the machinery of the universe to make a new shape that simply retains universe machinery status.
The point? Zero proof for any machine that doesn't have a maker. Countless proof for machinery that DOES have an identifiable maker.
Here is where science comes into the picture. It's called probability. When we have zero for something, and countless numbers of something else, the countless numbers overrule the zero.
Many people might join a lottery that is a billion to one for a winner. They think that there is just a chance that they might be the one in a billion. But what are the odds of winning when it is zero to a countless number?
Find us a machine that is proven to not have been made, or accept the odds as the scientists do... all machines have makers because we know of countless machines that have makers, but zero machines that don't have a maker.
All you are doing is like in the lottery that is going to have zero winners with countless players. You are suggesting that a non-player could be the winner if he played. Does that even make sense? That a non-play could win if he played when there were going to be zero winners?
Or, find us the proof of a machine that doesn't have a maker. Not the " it must be proof." The real proof.
