Answers needed

[robvalue]

To make my point about validity of the conclusion and the validity of the method being two different things:

Say we have a die, a normal 6 sided one, and it's inside a metal cube. We shake the cube about the place, then slam it down. We can't possibly see through the cube, and let's say even the sound is muffled so we have no clue what is going on in there.

Now, I can claim to know that the die has landed showing a 6 on the upwards face. I give no evidence for this, and no argument as to why this should be the case. My method is not valid. However, my conclusion may be valid by pure chance, roughly 1 in 6.

I could also claim that the die has landed so that it is balancing on one of the corners of the cube. Again, I give no evidence or arguments. My method is not valid, but my conclusion could possibly be valid, although extremely unlikely.

I could instead claim the die hasn't landed at all and is floating inside the cube. No one can prove that this is impossible within the rules of this scenario. But that doesn't mean that it is actually possible, either.

In all these cases, I'm offering up guesses and nothing more. My opinion should be ignored, because I'm offering nothing but speculation and not adding any explanation or understanding that we can learn from. The fact that my answers either are possible, or haven't been proved to be impossible, is irrelevant. So I don't need to claim that "god", whatever it is, is an impossible concept in order to point out that any particular method trying to demonstrate this is flawed.