Randomness is more likely even though standard logic leads us to fate/determinism. [Shared BOP]

What ifs and maybes are EXACTLY what this debate is about. This a purely philosophical debate about probability and possibility being discussed aside from standard reality. So my relation to this is very relevant to explain why randomness is more likely than fate.My opponent essentially has two, extremely flawed, contentions which I shall now point out the fundamental flaws in, after this I shall reassert my entire argument (why my opponent rudely calls cute 'what ifs' and 'maybes' as opposed to a mature string of argumentation).My opponent's first clear-cut contention is that There is only one way things could happen, which is namely the reality in which we exist and the entire perceived future which is yet to occur. The second contention raised is essentially merely a justification for the first in that if we were to try to let go a of a brick it could not fly and would most certainly land on the floor having fallen at an exact rate of 9.81 m/s^2.This is an extremely invalid assertion. He is essentially refusing to accept that there are an infinite number of outcomes of any present scenario and that the future is completely unknowable and indeterminable by merely stating that it is possible to determine one of an infinite possible out comes of a scenario! Surely even the most novice of philosophers can see the fundamental flaw in this line of argumentation. He assumes that the brick cannot fly, that it will 'fall' and that it will do so at an acceleration of 9.81 m/s^2. Firstly it would not necessarily 'fall' at that rate due to air resistance and due to us being able to let go of it on any planet or region in space where we perceive a second story window to be. Second of all, if might not even 'fall' since falling is a purely subjective matter whereby we assume an up and a down and see a person who we assume should be standing up colliding with a perceived ground in the direction we perceive as down and thus assume that a fall has occurred when in fact it might all have been an illusion in the first place. Lastly, how do we know a brick can't fly? What is a brick? The definition of brick that is running through your mind, the image, sound, taste, smell or texture you are imagining and apparently 'recalling' from what you assume is your memory, is in fact merely what, at this instantaneous present moment you happen to assume a brick to be. A brick might indeed be able to fly, in fact we might have had flying bricks for millenia but because suddenly we picture blocks and assume we need wings to fly then bam bricks can't fly... But only for that instantaneous moment of everything!My argument is that everything happening is a coincidence, without pre-determination or systematic arrangement and that any apparent systematic arrangement is only coincidental since it is interpreted by random subjective incapability to comprehend randomness. I would like to understand how exactly my opponent even began to disprove this, and how he is supposed to explain why fate is more likely than this.He states a flaw in my argument is that I rely on my interpretation of belief and skepticism. However, all I see in his argument is personal belief in 9.81 metres per second per second and in fate. So truly personal skepticism and belief is what this entire debate must revolve around.My opponent has the most obnoxious request of me proving that everything was changed in an instant. However how can I prove this if it has changed? I cannot prove what it was before because al the evidence has randomly changed too! Thus, I do not see why this request is valid and decent in any sense or form.In summary, only randomness can be truly accepted as a more likely theory. fate is a string of asserted assumptions of the subjectively interpreted objective reality in terms of certainty and determinibility.