I meant, for example, this claim by David Hume:
“People are fed by all sorts of prejudices that reinforce their beliefs. But when they discover that the course of nature is orderly and uniform, all their belief is shaken and destroyed. But when, after further reflection, they reach the conclusion that precisely order and uniformity are the strongest proof of design and higher intelligence, they return to the abandoned belief, and are now ready to found it on a firmer and more stable basis.”

I seem to recall that the Rabbi also spoke about this somewhere here on the site, though I don’t remember where at the moment.
And I wanted to ask why order and lawfulness arouse more wonder and a need for will or intention than disorder does.

After all, it seems like it’s 50/50: either reality is random or it’s ordered. An ordered reality isn’t more distinctive than a random one. Isn’t that so?

That’s exactly the point. It is precisely not 50/50. The definition of order is its distinctiveness. An ordered state means a rare state that does not have many other equivalent alternatives. A disordered state is a non-special state. Therefore the odds ratio of ordered versus disordered is 1 to 99 (for example), not 50/50. See the third notebook on entropy.

That’s true specifically when the laws lead to something unique (evolution –> human beings, fine-tuning, etc.),
but right now I’m speaking only about a reality of deterministic laws without purpose, just to isolate the Rabbi’s claim.

For example, a law according to which every two seconds a die is rolled, and the die results are distributed according to the probability of 1/6, without any uniqueness at all. It still seems to me that this would fit the definition of an ordered reality that exists and operates by rigid rules, and that the Rabbi would ask for a reason for it, even though there is no reason in its outcome.
Isn’t that so?

And I’m asking why. After all, there is nothing unique here. Just as it could fall every two seconds, it could fall every second.

I’ve already explained.
When there is a mechanism, it explains every outcome. Explanations are required only when there is randomness and the outcome is unique.

Right, my question is whether every mechanism needs a designer — why? Or only a mechanism that leads to uniqueness, which is obvious.

Why does just any mechanism need a designer?

Because if there is some machine, however simple it may be, someone created it. Think of a system of completely simple laws of nature. Every particle that stands somewhere gets bumped one meter to the right. Can such a simple mechanism exist on its own? If something exists, there is something that created it, unless it is self-caused / primordial / and so on.

I mean that the machine is primordial.
Would the Rabbi still argue that it requires a sufficient reason? Why, since it isn’t unique?

Even so, it is still not reasonable that such a thing is self-caused.

So when does the Rabbi define something as self-caused, and when not?

It’s not a definition but a characteristic. It’s just that some machine does not seem to me like something that could be self-caused.