Hey there Bill,

I am happy to follow your lead on this, especially since you wrote that article as a response to the kinds of analysis I am doing.

We'll have to take it bit by bit since there are many assumptions and assertions that needed to be reviewed. I begin with your estimation of probability:

Your estimation of the probability does not make any sense. If you want to use probability to justify your claims, you are going to have to learn the basics of Probability Theory. To calculate probability, we must begin with the

sample space of all possible outcomes and calculate the probability as the ratio of the possible number of "hits" to the total number of possibilities. For example, consider flipping a coin. The sample space is the set {heads, tails}. If the coin is fair, there is an equal chance of getting either result, so a single coin toss has a probability of 1/2 to get either result. If we repeat the experiment, the sample space doubles and we get {{H,H}, {H,T},{T,H}, {T,T}} for a total of four possibilities. The probability of any one of those events is therefore 1/4. If we don't care about the order, the possibility of getting both a heads and a tail is 1/4 + 1/4 = 1/2.

Likewise, the sample space of a six sided die is the set {1,2,3,4,5,6} and a fair die will have a 1/6th chance of hitting any one of those faces. Roll two dice and the sample space doubles to give us 36 unique possibilities. Thus, the possibility of rolling snakes eyes is 1/36, whereas there are six ways {{1,6}, {6,1}, {2,5},{5,2},{3,4}, {4,3}} to roll a 7 so 7 is the "luckiest" number in the sense that it is the most likely outcome with a probability of 6/36 = 1/6.

Now to calculate the probability of the sums of words strings, we need to look at the sample space of all possibilities. To get an estimate of that, we would need to consider the set of all possible word values. The smallest of course is a = 1. There is no way to get a word with value 2 because neither "aa" nor "b" is a word. We could get a 3 if we accept words like ab and ba. And on it goes. We have to know the actual distribution of words, which I have done by analyzing an English dictionary. As you probably recall, this is something I did long ago when debating the validity of English gematria. Here is the result from the thread

GOD'S GEMATRIA, THE VICTORS, SONGS AND "HARPS":

This graph gives an empirical measure of the expected value of a random English word. The largest value for the ordinal value of an English word is around 250, so the total range for all 79,000 words in the English dictionary I analysed is pretty small - about 250 possibilities. Note that the distribution is NOT a uniform (like what we would we would have with a coin toss or rolling a die). There are lots more words with values near the center (around 100). It's rather like a normal distribution (Bell curve) skewed a bit. It shows that's its very unlikely to get a word with a value near zero or much larger than about 200.

The fact that the distribution is not uniform makes the calculation of probability rather complicated. Rather than simply assuming the numbers have equal probability (like a coin or die) we must account for the fact that some numbers in a random English sentence will be found more frequently than others. But there's no need to do the calculation because none of this really matters anyway, because calculating the probability of cherry picked coincidences is utterly, totally, and absolutely meaningless. Such calculations will never tell you that something is "designed" because RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.

Let me repeat:

RANDOM EVENTS ALMOST ALWAYS HAVE VERY SMALL PROBABILITIES.
Therefore, small probabilities are not themselves signs of design. This is the primary error of all numerologists who try to justify their collection of cherry-picked results by showing that their particular set of cherry picked results had a "small probability." It wouldn't matter what set of results were picked from the ocean of possibilities. They ALL would have a small probability. So the small probability tells us NOTHING about whether they were designed.

Let me repeat: ANY RANDOM SET OF WORDS generated by your methods will occur with a very small probability. Therefore, the fact that the probability is small tells us nothing about whether or not the set was "put there" by a designer.

## Bookmarks