"No number of scientists in the world can ever prove that the stars are far away, or that the Higg’s Boson exists — or even that the Earth is round (but shh, don’t tell the Flat Earthers that!) Nobody can prove that things will always fall down when you drop them. Nobody can prove that energy is conserved."
Those are all confirmed facts.
Believers frequently indulge in a kind of radical skepticism, but only for empirically derived knowledge. Nothing can be known (except God).
But that's just not how life is. We don't get or need the certitude of mathematical proof to accumulate accurate and reliable information about how the world works. And that we can't have that last infinitesimal of certitude that separates correct beyond a reasonable doubt and mathematically certain is irrelevant to how we understand and navigate the world, and irrelevant to whether we should believe gods exist, which I presume is the reason apologists resort to this argument. Somehow, they hope, if they can undermine the fruits of critical thought by calling them unproven, this will somehow make the insufficiently evidenced belief in deities more tenable.
But it doesn't, because any argument about distrusting the output of reason applied to the evidence of the senses applies tenfold to arguments based in faith. In other words, one can't call the demonstrably correct knowledge gleaned by rigorous thought "just a theory," "not proven," "subjective belief," etc., then throw offer the output of soft thinking as an alternative, for which all of those phrases apply orders of magnitude more.
Yes and the computer you are using is also just the result of blind chance, I suppose. The world is billions of times more complex than your computer.
Complexity is not a proxy for intelligence. Blind nature routinely assembles very complex entities.
One way to tell the difference between what nature has created and what only intelligence like mans can create is that nature has the means to build galaxies, solar systems, and living creatures without intelligent oversight, but computers do not. One can observe a human being being assembled in a womb with no intelligent oversight. The various elements involved - ribonucleic acids, enzymes, nucleotides, lipid membranes, etc. - can all be made automatically, and an organism will be assembled.
There is nothing analogous for computers. Blind physical forces never assemble computers without an intelligence directing them. Arguing against the one by citing the other doesn't hold water.
One thing that always struck me about the watchmaker argument for divine creation is how the author failed to note that his character wanders past countless natural structures in a heath until he comes upon a watch, and recognizes that it had a designer and creator. If the argument is that everything else he walked past unnoticed was also from a designer, why did he not offer those shrubs as evidence rather that the watch? Answer: He understood intuitively that they are radically different kinds of things. He knows his audience will also recognize that the watch cannot be natural, but not think that about the remainder of the surroundings.
I've seen too many people changed by God himself to ever believe we can do it on our own.
Does that make sense to you? One example of a person changed without a god belief falsifies your position.
The Old Testament god fails in the first book of the Bible, more than once.
