What do Atheists mean about ‘No Evidence for God’

[Wombat]

No, natural, or material, or without God, does not mean random or mere chance. They are completely different. If you want to make an argument that "determined by the laws of nature" means the same thing as "completely random", give it a shot..

If you want to make an argument that what we call "the laws of nature" are not the product of "mere chance" and could not (in the absence of a 'Lawmaker') just as easily been any of a host of other possible laws...give it a shot.

I suggest it will involve demonstrating that these "laws" were imminent and immutable >before< the universe began...that the 'laws' governing DNA were present before there was DNA...that there could not have been, as a result of random events (Meteor) chance changes that alter the laws themselves.

I would also suggest that these considerations are irrelevant obfuscations to the simple (and pertinent) question asked seeking to establish baseline mutual agreement on the probability of particular events.

To me it’s pretty dam simple and straightforward-
One hurdles horse race in which all horses bar one fall is unusual but not unique and not improbable or suspicious. Likewise the same outcome six months later at another track...they are discrete events...unusual but not remarkable.

My question pertains and leads to- What considerations of ‘probability’ do we make if two sequential races have the same outcome?.................Or three?.

Is that not a scenario of decreasing ‘probability’ and increasing suspicion?

And what are the odds, after so much semantic evasion of a simple question/consideration, of getting a straight answer?



"To determine a potential event outside the realms of mere chance (ie a highly suspicious event) we would need to establish (even as rough rule of thumb) what is statistically probable and what is an anomaly that prompts/requires further investigation."Wombat

Response-

I guess, if we were talking about random chance. We're not. We're talking about an absence of magic, or supernatural explanations. ..

And how could one determine what is “supernatural” if you cannot/will not engage in the consideration of what is ‘natural’ at even the most basic/statistical level?

Frankly I don’t understand the ongoing blocking and obfuscation of a simple question seeking to establish rule of thumb probability. (Obfuscation to the point of you deciding what is/is not under consideration-“... talking about random chance. We're not”.
Clearly >I am< "talking about random chance" and probability...towards the end of exploring potential evidence of God.

If you don’t like horse racing scenarios and cannot/will not commit an opinion on the probability of all horses bar one falling....then how about dice? How many (roughly) rolls of the dice (2) would it take to induce suspicion if they consistently failed to come up ‘pairs’?