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

I shall now conclude a nice debate.Fate, it seems, is base don wishful thinking and hope for certainty. Randomness, as I have shown, is the acceptance that no matter how much we wish to know things for certain, nothing at all is certain, even reality itself. My opponent has failed to rebut this the entire debate and merely says that I am making the possibility of everything in history being rewritten this instant up from my imagination. Whilst this is actually true, it is a valid point and my opponent failed to successfully refute it's probability, let alone it's possibility.Another undisputed point is that despite reality itself being objective, the only things we can every know, and know at present, of reality is purely subjective and thus is 1005 possibly fake and merely an illusion. We are limited by our five senses, and even if we evolve into the next stage of primates and develop a sixth sense of some kind, six is very almost as limiting as five when compared to infinity since infinity is boundless.My opponent rebuts the unpredictability of falling of the brick with this statement: 'Needless to say, if the brick did fall at a slower rate due to being on the moon, then that too would be entirely predictable as long as you knew the exact mass of the moon.' Firstly we can never positively know the exact mass of the moon since we are limited to subjective interpretation of it, thus always leaving room for doubt and error. Secondly, the moon itself is merely a concept, one which is very malleable and easily distorted with each and every passing second that you think of it. You think the moon is round? How do you know it's not square? What if your eyes are fooling you, what if what you think is a square now is what, one second ago, you termed a circle? These are all the undeniable limitations of the subjective experience of reality that leads to limitations in comprehending objective reality. My opponent has failed to refute this throughout his debate.On another note, it is compatible that I cannot prove that everything was changed a second ago whilst still claiming randomness to be more likely. One can never prove that history was changed because to prove something we rely on evidence from history itself.In conclusion, fate is merely base don unjustified assumptions such as that we know true reality and that everything is perfectly predictable whist randomness is the acceptance that the only concrete and certain truth is that nothing of objective reality is certain to beings of subjective limitations and that objective reality itself has no reason, meaning or purpose behind it it is merely one of an infinite possible realities and hence is truly 'picked out of a hat' so to say and of pure random chance happened to be the reality as it is at this instant in time.On a final please to rebutt predictibility and knowledge, consider this. What is there's a bi fat blubbery monster that you are inside right now? What if it exists as something we never have comprehended before by laws of physics, chemistry and biology and is undetectable by any of our five senses yet exists as a form of reality that we are yet to ever comprehend? Just a thought.