You mean like the assumption that a deity exists that cared to save the life of the 34 times convicted felon and adjudicated rapist? What is the "shred of evidence" for that?
The evidence is in the overwhelming odds against Trump surviving this attempt on his life. You can't account for that, other than by resorting to your secular atheism which denies the existence of god in anything. You aren't arguing facts. You're assuming them into existence, despite all evidence to the contrary, then asking rhetorical questions that are no more than tautologies. Posters have been employing that illogical device since page 1. You're very late to the secular congregation, and your performance is poor.
We have had three presidents assassinated (Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy). We have had at least three presidents or candidates for president survive assassination attempts (T. Roosevelt, Ford, and Trump. So why were the odds of Trump's survival overwhelmingly against?
You mean like the assumption that a deity exists that cared to save the life of the 34 times convicted felon and adjudicated rapist? What is the "shred of evidence" for that?
I never said anything about a deity.
Or perhaps you care to provide a shred of evidence that I did.
I was showing that your statement about "assumptions without a shred of evidence" applied just as well to positing the intervention of a deity in the assassination attempt - as is the argument of the thread. It wasn't necessary for you to make that claim; it followed from your statement.
If god was real and a protector of Trump, wouldn't he have told Joe Biden to stay in the race?
Since we might assume God is on the side of right (not the "right") and justice we could argue that he would have steadied the would-be assassin's arm. So I guess he doesn't exist, after all.
The evidence is in the overwhelming odds against Trump surviving this attempt on his life. You can't account for that, other than by resorting to your secular atheism which denies the existence of god in anything. You aren't arguing facts. You're assuming them into existence, despite all evidence to the contrary, then asking rhetorical questions that are no more than tautologies. Posters have been employing that illogical device since page 1. You're very late to the secular congregation, and your performance is poor.
We have had three presidents assassinated (Lincoln, McKinley, and Kennedy). We have had at least three presidents or candidates for president survive assassination attempts (T. Roosevelt, Ford, and Trump. So why were the odds of Trump's survival overwhelmingly against?
It looks like you are saying Trump's odds of being killed the other day were 50% (6 attempts, 3 dead). Am I understanding your statistical analysis correctly? Pretty sketchy, Silverfish. That's like BLM math. Cold fusion math. Government math. Ding dong math. I think some holes could be poked in your analysis. As the saying goes, "It's not only not right, it's not even wrong."