Quote from: BADecker on July 19, 2020, 08:24:31 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on July 18, 2020, 09:52:58 PM

Quote from: BADecker on July 18, 2020, 07:39:26 PM

Quote from: odolvlobo on July 18, 2020, 04:38:07 AM

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.

Quote from: BADecker on July 18, 2020, 07:39:26 PM

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 = Gm₁m₂/r². 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.

All you are saying is that we don't know anything because anything might not be what it is.

Einstein's relativity is theory... not known to be true. Einstein used a partial view of the universe to come up with his theory. The partial view simply exists in the area that we normally do math in, so it looks true. Newton may yet be proven to be correct. Especially if you consider Quantum Mechanics.

You absolutely don't have to find a machine without a maker. People can talk themselves into whatever they want... as long as there is no extreme pain or extreme joy. That's why much of science is not science... such as evolution theory.

The science topic regarding the odds where zero is included on one side, is accepted as fact when there is a great number on the other side. I don't remember what the number is, but it is something like 10⁴⁰ to one. It is far less for zero.

However, there is more scientific proof for God's existence than just this.

Cool

You cant prove any of this without linking to baby sacrificer's work. Because your version of science does not exist.