Nice analogy but it's wrong. It doesn't matter if everything is moving, what matters is the cause of the movement and you can't prove that all the things moving are caused by something instead of causeless. Besides motion is a relative concept, so you are never "moving" but only "moving with respect to something".

You still need to prove everything has a cause and also prove that god doesn't have one and also prove god exists. Man you have a lot to do.

There is nothing that shows that all machines have makers either. If a rock or a mountain are machines then they have no maker. The only machines that have makers are things that humans made, everything else we don't know and you don't know either. You claim that because machines that humans made have makers (humans) then everything else that is a machine also have makers? How does that make any sense?
You don't know whether a mountain or the earth had a maker.

You lost badecker, just stop.

I accept evolution because there is a ton of evidence for it. ''If God were within C&E, science would have found some little bit of Him by now'' Why? How do you know?
''Especially considering anything that is part of C&E that is big enough and complex enough to cause the whole, complex universe, would have been found already if it were part of the universe.'' Why? How do you know?
How do you know they just haven't find him and he is indeed part of the universe (if he exists, of course) And why is not finding any single piece of proof of god, evidence for god?
You seem unable to prove that everything has a cause, so you lost, again.

It's clear that badecker wont ever be convinced of anything that he is not already convinced of. I'm simply arguing with him because it's fun and hopefully helps people that are actually genuinely interested in these topics without being extremely biased.

Can't have free will if everything is deterministic as you claim (aka having a known cause) ''
God is outside of C&E because He made it to be that way.'' HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT THOUGH, you are claiming things for the sake of it, where is your evidence?

But how do you know that all machines have makers, what makes you think that and do you have any evidence for it?

The argument is simple, how do you know that all complex things require a designer? You claim that complexity shows that everything is designed but how do you know? We only know our things are designed because they are made by us, humans and we know these things are designed by us by comparing them to nature.

This argument, by the way, is a well known flawed argument, discussed plenty of times.

''The argument from design, also known as the teleological argument, is an argument for the existence of God (or life-engineering aliens) that may be summarized as follows: When I see a complex object such as a watch, I know it has been designed: therefore, when I see a complex object such as a tiger, I should infer that it has been designed. This act of comparing two objects and drawing similar conclusions based on similarities (while ignoring important differences) is a prime example of a false analogy.''

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_design#Problems_with_the_above
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-a-schwartz/intelligent-design-watchmaker_b_1730878.html

Any proof for any of that? Why is god ''outside'' of cause and effect? If free will of humans is not connected to their capabilities, then why are they punished/rewarded for it?

Did you forget that I already showed you that complexity does not show design? It's right here:

''assumes humans determine whether or not something is designed by seeing if it has an accurate adjustment of parts—that is, if it shows complexity.  But this is certainly mistaken.  We know that something is designed not by its complexity, or even the degree to which it appears to serve a purpose, but by looking for ways in which it differs from nature.  In other words, nature is the benchmark against which we compare an object to see if it is designed.

For example, many naturally occurring rock fragments just happen to have a sharp edge that is well-suited for serving the purpose of chopping meat, though this does not lead us to believe that these fragments were designed.  Yet, we have found clearly manufactured prehistoric chopping and cutting stones that were designed.  How do we know they were designed and not just examples of fortuitous rock fractures?  Clearly it is not because they are sharp, since naturally occurring rocks are also sharp; and not because they are complex, since they have neither parts nor complexity; and not because they serve a purpose, since obviously random events can make a rock very sharp.  We know these stone hand axes were designed because they have markings on them that differ from what one would find in nature—that is, they have signs of manufacture.

Because the proper criterion for establishing design is difference from nature, and not complexity or apparent usefulness, we can know that something was designed even when it is both extremely simple and has no identifiable purpose at all. ''

''we don’t know something is intelligently designed because it shows complexity; we know it is designed because it shows signs of manufacture, and the only way we know something is manufactured is by comparing it with nature or by having direct experience of its manufacture.  Now, if the criterion for determining design is comparison with nature, then it makes no sense to apply that criterion to nature itself since nature provides the very benchmark for making the comparison.''

You didn't answer at all here. I asked you how do you know that everything is designed or made by a sentient being. Yes we know our machines are designed by us, obviously just like we know a watch or a chair is designed by humans because nature does not produce such things. You are claiming that trees, rocks, planets, everything is designed by something else, my question is, how do you know?

Is it really?

Then all the other religions are also true and their gods are also true. Muslims are willing to die (and they suicide currently) for their god, so allah beats jesus christ by your own logic.
''Humans will die for what they believe to be the truth'' Believe is the key word. There is no evidence that jesus christ existed, maybe as a person but not as a god. What history book talks about jesus and his miracles?

Badecker contradicts himself all the time like:

Free will but also everything is determined.
Everything has a cause but god doesn't.
Scientific theories are not known to be true, asks me to prove something by telling him if there is a scientific theory of that something.

He is just going insane, I think.

Yes? Quantum mechanics is a pretty solid theory that shows that LOL. The timing of the decay of a particular atom is random (to the best of our current knowledge). This is true for a lot of quantum mechanical effects and QM says they are unknowable. This is by the way much more important than finding the cause of a lot of meaningless things here on earth. Because if deep down, on a quantum level, things are truly random then a lot of things are actually truly random. Imagine atoms, if all their movements and actions are random then everything is random.

Again, until you prove that everything has a cause, you are wrong. (And even if radioactive decay has a cause, it still wont prove that everything has a cause)

This is the same argument as ''everything is designed'' which I already debunked. You told me to look for the definition of machine: ''an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:'' Now if the universe can be a machine, then so can a volcano, for example. Now how do you know a volcano has a maker? We don't. We only know ''machines'' have makers because those makers are humans, all the machines that have makers are humans, that doesn't prove god or that all machines have makers, it only proves, in any case, that all machines have human makers.

When you prove that everything has a cause, which you haven't yet I will agree with you.

ROFL. What does that mean? You are saying that elements don't decay on their own or what's your argument here, I'm confused, you are just making things up now.

''that we know of'' What you mean, that we know of. There isn't one because there is not even 1 single piece of evidence for it lmao.

Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).

The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.

Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).

Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).

High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).

I already did, radioactive decay, until you prove there isn't pure random all you are saying is bullshit.