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

Thank you, Madman, and the audience for making this debate possible.As my opponent has stated, we will share the burden of proof in this debate, and he has made it very clear that I must not only refute his arguments, but provide ones of my own. So far, however, I hardly see any argument posed by my opponent in need of refuting. They are, in fact, little more than cute thought experiments. "What if"s and "Maybe"s.He throws an unhealthy amount of skepticism on reality itself and tells us he does not see how the assertion that everything has a reason behind its existent is equally as (or more) likely than the assertion that everything has no reason behind its existence. That, it seems, is the strongest evidence my opponent has to offer to try to convince us his theory of randomness is more probable than not: his own personal skepticism, which has not proven itself to be justified at all.Instead, I offer you a much more reasonable theory: that everything in the universe is the way it is, not because it just randomly is, but because it is the only way it could have been. I'm not proposing there are an infinite number of parallel universes or any other such nonsense. This, to me, would be an impossible thing to try to prove.I propse the existence of only one universe (at least that we know of) which has certain constant physical laws which govern the outcomes of every event in history. For example, when I hold a brick out a second-story window and let go, there are an infinite number of directions we could logically concieve it to move and an infinite number of speeds we can concieve it to move with. We can even concieve it to not move at all, and instead just float there, completetly still.My opponent would have us believe all of these conceievable options are, in fact, valid options that may actually happen. But they stimply are not, as the law of gravity tells us there is only one direction that brick will fly: straight down at an acceleration of 9.81 meters per second per second, because that is where the closest, greatest ceneter of gravity is, the core of the Earth.My opponent states, "Randomness is more likely because everything could have happened an infinite number of ways, yes only ends up appearing to happen one way." This is demonstradably false. We may be able to concieve, in our imaginations, things happening an infinite number of ways, but that does not mean they literally could happen an infinite number of ways. There is only one way the brick can fall.It cannot fly upward, it cannot fly toward the ground at a rate quicker than 9.81 meters per second per second, and it cannot alchemise itself into a bar of gold randomly. These are phenomona we would only expect to happen if true randomness did exist. Clearly, though, we do not expect these things to happen as true randomness does not exist.I am not, according to my opponent, supposed to make my point with scientific certainty, but that is my stance: that the physical laws of the universe, if completely understood, could be used to predict the outcome of everything. Madman says that for all we know, these physical laws were not always what they are today, that maybe they were once something entirely different and then one day, for seemingly no reason at all, they changed to be some other random thing. This, though, is a very bold claim, and one that I ask my opponent to prove, else expect me to not take it seriously.For the record, I am not accusing my opponent of adhering to the belief that the physical have randomly changed in the past, only that they might have. I would even concede to this. They might have. But again, "what if"s and "maybe"s serve no purpose in serious debate. Unless my opponent provides sufficient reason for us to believe the physical laws have randomly changed, or could randomly change, then we shouldn't.I propse that it is far more likely these physical laws have always remained constant, or at the very least, if they ever did change, it would be because of some explaniable phenomenon, not an uncaused, random occurance.Well, I think that's certainly enough rambling on my part. Over to you again, Madman.