You cannot calculate odds for 'ANY particular order' because that involves division by zero. In order to calculate odds, there must be the possibility of not obtaining 'ANY particular order' (chances against) and we know that there are zero chances of not obtaining an order. Division by zero is undefined.
Now, if you are talking probabilities, the probability of 'ANY particular order' is equal to 1 because any order will do. This again is of no use to your argument.
It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate 'ANY particular order' with a specified order. I'm sorry but you fell into logical fallacy in your defense of naturalism.
Can you defend naturalism without falling into logical fallacy?
You misread my post.
The math that AndrewC did for the deck being “in order with aces to kings for each suit and the suits in club, diamonds, hearts and spades sequence” will work equally as well as for any other specified order. (I used the word “particular”, but apparently you like “specified” better.)
Just... wow... I see that we'll have to add "basic probability calculations" to the long list of things that anti-evos can't do at even a basic high-school level without saying things that are just completely wrong, goofy, and fallacious.
Why don't you leave the topic to the folks who actually understand it, like the aveage high school student? When you say laughable stuff like this, you're clearly way out of your depth.
Now, if you are talking probabilities, the probability of 'ANY particular order' is equal to 1 because any order will do. This again is of no use to your argument.
Sigh. Reading comprehension is your friend.
It is the fallacy of equivocation to equate 'ANY particular order' with a specified order. I'm sorry but you fell into logical fallacy in your defense of naturalism.
Are you *really* this clueless, or are you just playing childish word games in order to have a really cheap excuse to disingenuously insult him for saying something sensible? Neither option inspires confidence in you or your side of the discussion.
Can you defend naturalism without falling into logical fallacy?
He just did. Can you attack it without engaging in puerile antics that make a fool of yourself?
If you're wondering why you anti-science guys get laughed off the stage, it's because of behavior like this.