The real irony about so many pious religious leaders is that by believing we’re the product of deliberate spiritual creation, without realizing it, want to force humanity to live purely to the whims of evolutionary forces. This is why it’s important, for example, to emphasize evolution is isn’t a belief, and is also far beyond theoretical.
Nothing hurts the process of truth seeking more than failed or deceiving arguments. The promotion of any falsity results in distrust and dissolves credibility. So, if you want to avoid fraudulence or apparent ignorance, I suggest you understand what the process of argument really is. Of course, if your goal actually is to deceive or sham, hopefully, at least, with a strong comprehension of argument, you’ll be more successful achieving these ends! Morals are an aside for now; first things first, let’s focus on making arguments which don’t result in immediate dismissal.
So, an argument is defined as a logical construct consisting of a set of premises, or declared propositions, along with a declared conclusion. A deductive argument uses straightforward logic to assert that a conclusion is the logical consequence of these premises. When these premises are certain, the conclusion should follow with certainty. If there is a fault in the logical reasoning, there exists a fallacy, or a logical failure. Inductive arguments, on the other hand, can only suggest that conclusions are supported by their premises, which can result in generalizations for theory-building. Inductive reasoning is not deductively valid and is not formal, but informal, logic. It’s important to understand the differences between conclusions invalidated by fallacy, those proved with certainty, and those proved without certainty.
Strong and weak induction are the two types of inductive reasoning which lead to general, uncertain conclusions. If I say, “cats like to play with strings,” I’m not lying, but I’m not declaring that with 100% certainty, either. This is a strong inductively reasoned conclusion, and it forms a probable conclusion by simply inducing a universal generalization from the particular. If I say, “I know with certainty all cats like to play with strings,” then I’m being deceiving, even if I’ve never heard of a cat who didn’t like strings. If it’s only ever been observed that cats do like string (premise), then when I say, “cats like to play with string,” what I’m really saying is, “[all observed cats]…”. If you find a cat that hates strings, then I have to change that to, “[most cats]…”, which really means “[most observed cats]…”, because I still cannot say, “[with certainty, most cats]…”.
Weak induction, which makes a conclusion only possible from true premises, takes a specific observation to draw a general conclusion. This can be as ridiculous as saying, “stupid people cannot read, therefore all people who cannot read are stupid.” While the premise may be certain, there are plenty of reasons a highly intelligent person could not read. The logical connection of premise to conclusion here is false and the only certainty in the argument is that some illiterates are stupid. Of course, if the conclusion cannot be proven false, then it is actually possible all illiterates are stupid! Try disproving this weak conclusion: “rain is falling from the sky, therefore all rain falls from the sky.”
As inductive arguments, these arguments fail to “informal fallacy,” where the premises fail to support the proposed conclusion. Their merit is dependent on the inductive strength of the connection of premise to conclusion. Straightforward deductive arguments can also fail to informal fallacy if a premise is hidden or omitted. Along with informal fallacies are “formal fallacies,” which also affect both inductive and deductive arguments. These fallacies are always wrong because they are non sequiturs, or arguments with false logical structures in proving the conclusion from the premises.
A frequent type of formal fallacy is an ad hominem argument that attacks a person making a claim rather than the claim itself. An example of this would be to say, “Americans should not invade foreign countries, kill their leaders, and convert their citizens to Christianity, because that was a suggestion put forth by Ann Coulter, who is a batshit-crazy psychopath.” Even though it’s likely true that Ann Coulter is a batshit-crazy psychopath, you must counter the actual claim that America should invade every non-Christian country and mass murder their governments to avoid making a formal fallacy. Besides, stop being mean. Even though she frequently calls for ruthless genocides and shameless suppressions of freedoms, and unpredictably shakes and twitches violently while reciting incoherent Satanic chants, she’s probably a very loving, generous, and gentle soul at heart.
Additionally, arguments have or don’t have validity and soundness. Arguments which fail to logical fallacy are invalid, where the conclusion does not logically follow from the premises. However, because a valid argument could still have a false conclusion, soundness is used for clarification. A sound argument must have both A: True premises and B: A valid argument. The resulting conclusion of a sound argument is therefore always true. An explanation is the inverse of an argument, since it tries to determine the premises of why something is true. An argument, on the other hand, tries to show that something will be true based on premises and their resulting consequences. A look at frequently made fallacies warrants further investigation, which I will save for later! 
A first grader knows that the probability of flipping heads on a coin is 50%. With 3 flips, you have a decent (1/8) chance of all heads, but as the number of flips increases towards infinity, so does the flip average towards 50%. Consequently, infinite heads becomes infinitely impossible.
At first thought, you might suppose 50.0000->% of the total flips landing on heads now means that the quantities of heads and tails become increasingly identical. Quite the contrary: With nearly infinite flips, quinitillions more heads than tails becomes a negligible surplus of increasingly minute proportions. The point being, as the average converges towards 50%, the total numeric tally skews wildly, and in great proportions.
If the same number of flips are repeated, we are just as likely to incur quintillions more tails. What happens is as the coin is flipped infinitely, the total tally skews distantly towards one outcome, and then, eventually (but at random), swings back to the other. The, perhaps, surprising outcome is an infinite cycling. All of this occurs as the total outcome average approaches exactly 50%.
Now let’s suppose you’re drunk, live in a one dimensional world (a straight line), and decide to flip a coin infinitely. Heads means one step the right, and tails one to the left. With infinite flips, it turns out that you will cross every point you’ve already stepped on an infinite number of times! Given infinite time, every event (position) will occur infinite times! What are the philosophical implications of this?
Lets try this experiment again, but in two dimensions. You’re drunk at the bar, but this time decide to walk home, taking steps equally randomly in the cardinal directions. The math ends up working out the same as it does in one dimension. Given infinite repetitions, you’ll cross every point you already stepped on an infinite number of times. You’ll find your home an infinite number of times!
Philosophically speaking, does this mean that in a hypothetical reality of infinite time, we’d end up repeating each action an infinite number of times? Sounds tiring, if not downright miserable or worse. Don’t forget, though, that you will infinitely push your boundaries in one or two dimensions and reach infinite new places as the infinite flips go on. And this is a profound truth alone: the infinite provides for infinite experiences.
The only downside to this reality seems to be having to repeat the experience of each experienced position infinite times! If, for example, one of those points contains an angry panda who wants to bite you every time you cross its path, you’re going to have to endure a vicious panda bite infinite times! So, is there any way to avoid repeating an event that’s blocking your path? Turns out there is.. welcome to the third dimension.
What makes the third dimension different from a one and two dimensional world is the existence of infinite planes. If the panda is located at the X,Y,Z position (10,20,5), you can get around the panda on a different plane, such as (10,20,4.999). If you’re not familiar with Z coordinates, just imagine jumping over the panda or floating underneath it. Obstacle avoided. Consequently, a lost bird traveling at random can fly around infinitely and never find its nest.
Hopefully, the bird didn’t leave anything sentimental in there, but more importantly, this immortal bird has plenty of time to craft a much better nest. So if there does exist a heaven which spans the infinity in more than two dimensions, take comfort in knowing that you may never have to repeat an unpleasant event twice. Likewise, don’t discount a beautiful moment in time. You may never experience that feeling again.