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

PLEASE NOTE THAT THERE IS A SHARED BURDEN OF PROOF, CON MUST NOT ONLY COUNTER BE BUT ALSO PROVE THEMSELVES CORRECTPlease do not use sources or references for this debate. I want purely original work only. This is not supposed to be a two way debate. The first, and preferably only, line of debate is that randomness is more likely than fate. The second line of debate is that fate/determinism making more sense than randomness is not actually reason to see it as more probable. I would prefer if the second line of debate was ignored and that acceptance of abstract logic as opposed to standard logic was in use. I shall define key terms and then outline my case. Round one is not acceptance, it is the raising of my opponent's case no rebuttals in round one. The rest is freestyling. No new points in last round preferably though. DefinitionsRandomness: The theory 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. Standard logic: The system of finding truth from lies that relies purely on interpreting what is known and proven as opposed to considering what is unknown or immeasurable. Fate/determinism: The theory that everything is bound to happen, no matter how much one wishes it not to happen, nor how much we attempt to change it happening, that even our attempted changing of it is predetermined and that absolutely nothing is random or uncertain. Randomness does make less apparent sense than fate, because if we base our opinion purely on what we have seen or can comprehend as subjective beings limited to our five senses and the maximum capacity of our brains (which considering that we can often forget where you just left your keys quite often, is clearly not superb). Our limitations of comprehension via the five senses and logic based purely on our understanding of reality and truth mean that standard logic is not a sufficient method of separating truth from lies in this universe (if the universe is even what we actually exist in). Just because we think that since everything fits together nicely by physical laws and mathematical equations doesn't mean that this wasn't randomly, coincidentally apparent to us and one day might completely be untrue whereby for complete unknown reasons we all turn into dogs or gain superpowers or defy gravity or generate magnetic fields from our own bodies (heavy X-men reference there). We think that because our equations fit, that the equations themselves aren't random and that the theory of relativity was always E=mc^2 Well what if it was actually always C=em^2 but just a second before I wrote this our memories of what it was, all records of Einstein and reality and all evidence of the theory relativity having ever existed were randomly rearranged to all fit that E=mc^2? Can you really say that this is not just a plausible as it all being predetermined and perfectly arranged for eternity? Standard logic is thus an ineffective system of reasoning to refer to for this debate, we shall be using abstract logic only. If my opponent disagrees they must read all of what I wrote and give a detailed rebuttal as to why not. Abstract logic: Pure reasoning based on discussable likelihood alone and not scientific certainty. Randomness is more likely because everything could have happened an infinite number of ways, yes only ends up appearing to happen one way. Now although it is perhaps a cute idea that there are parallel universes whereby all forms of fate are occurring at once, when did they being and when will they end, why do they run on time if they exist eternally and all at once? All unanswerable questions. Randomness theory is simply that for no reason whatsoever you exist, I exist, even God might exist (hence me being agnostic as opposed to atheist). However, even if God predetermined us, God itself (or himself) was random and his will and predetermination thus is equally random and indeterminable. I do not se how the assertion that absolutely everything is predetermined and 100% certain and predictable is more likely, and even equally likely, to the assertion that everything exists for no reason with no system other than one randomly apparent for a temporary amount of time, if time even exists that is (perhaps it is randomly ingrained into our minds and in fact everything is happening at once, or you and the rest of reality were created at this instant with false memories).