Scientists might not have talked about proving the existence of God, but they have proven Him in the things that they do:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14047133
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1662153.40
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.16803380.
1. Unable to show why or how you know everything is designed - Fits the definition and description of things that are/have-been designed.
2. Unable to demonstrate that nothing is truly random or that everything has a cause. - Upheld by science because of the vast numbers of caused things, and the fact that no non-caused thing has ever been found. Scientific probability says that pure random does not exist. Argument contradicts itself because god would also need a cause. - The fact of God being God, shows that He is different. If He weren't, He would not be God. Because God is different, we don't know if God has needs or not. Argument does not show/indicate that the cause of the universe is a god. - Machines have makers.
3. ''Except that cause and effect are upheld by Newton's 3rd Law. And this means that everything is pre-programmed to exist the way it does.'' Newtons Law DOES NOT say that everything has a cause. ''For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.'' Note how it says ''for every action'' and not ''everything has a cause''. - So what? Find us an action that was not caused. This point essentially has to do with #2.
4. ''The universe system is extremely complex, via C&E. Yet we don't see anything that can make such complexity. We don't really see anything that is more complex being made by something less complex without greater loss in some other way to the less complex system.'' Complex is a vague word by itself. Complex in what sense? - So you are starting to understand how complex complexity really is, right? Brains, like many other complex things, are not irreducible complex. They're made up of simpler components combined according to a simple set of rules. If you have a process that applies (relatively) simple rules to (relatively) simple components in an iterative fashion, you can end up creating something much more complex than you can understand as a whole. - Yet the causing of complexity made up from simpler parts has its making in whatever started C&E. We have no certifiable example of anything having been set in place by something that was less complex, without greater complexity somewhere "up-line" C&E-wise doing the C&E from simpler to greater complexity. This shows that the earlier greater complexity is even more complex than thought, because it was able to C&E greater complexity through lesser complexity, rather than simply reducing the complexity of itself to get the end complexity.
As always, very easy to dismantle your ''arguments''
As usual, you haven't begun to even consider most of what you say.