Yep. It's called the gunslinger fallacy. One has to state ones hypothesis BEFORE one gathers the data to support it. The pack of cards analogy Is a good one. I use a rubber chicken. I toss it into the audience and get them to throw it about, writing the names of the people who catch it. I then calculate the odds of that order happening by chance and conclude that since it is so high, I must have rigged the experiment. Of course as it's already happened, as you rightly say the odds are one in one.
Fantastically unlikely things happen every day by pure dumb luck. That's in no way proof of guidance. I've have a couple of straight flushes in my poker career. The number of hands I've played, that's very likely. The chances of my NEXT hand being a straight flush remain pretty tiny.
Fantastically unlikely things happen every day by pure dumb luck. That's in no way proof of guidance. I've have a couple of straight flushes in my poker career. The number of hands I've played, that's very likely. The chances of my NEXT hand being a straight flush remain pretty tiny.
"Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken."
Sith code
