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.
Because, in a nutshell, your argument is "all machines have a maker, the universe is a machine, therefore the universe has a maker". Your premise that "all machines have a maker" is based on a observation, ""our vast experience is that machines have makers". I have shown you that this observation is biased and wrong.
I don't have to prove that there are machines with no makers. I just have to show you that your observation is not true. That means that your premise is not supported, and therefore your argument doesn't work.
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.
Yeah, that's not how science and probability work. You can't prove something with probability.
Lets take gravity for example. For hundreds of years we believed that gravity worked like this: F = Gm
1m
2/r
2. Countless observations confirmed it, zero observations contradicted it. Then, it was noticed that the orbit of Mercury kind of contradicted it. Later, Einstein came up with relativity and showed how gravity actually works (as far as we know). Despite the "probability", Newton turned out to be wrong.