Q&A: Refuting the Die Analogy
Refuting the Die Analogy
Question
With God's help,
indeed, if we saw a die land on 6 a hundred times, we would conclude that it is loaded (= has a tendency to land on 6), but we would not conclude that some intelligent being caused this intentionally.
So too, the world is indeed special, and one should conclude that there is a high probability for the creation of life (which is itself a very rare thing), but one should not conclude that someone intended and planned it. That is, that someone caused the laws not to be fair.
So the whole proof has fallen apart completely.
Answer
How did we get here? I assume this is meant to continue an earlier discussion.
In any case, I’m not going to continue it, because it has been exhausted. I’ll just say that nothing has fallen apart. What you wrote is simply a misunderstanding, but I don’t have the energy to keep going over this again and again without making any progress.
Discussion on Answer
I honestly don’t remember anymore, from all the discussions about dice and outcomes. It’s been wrung dry in various questions on the site.
(In the way you phrased the question, you didn’t indicate which argument you were referring to or exactly what you were claiming, so I assumed you were continuing some previous discussion.)
Do you mean that seriously? I explained that it isn’t clear why in the case of a die we do not conclude that there was special intent to create a loaded die, whereas in the case of the universe we do.
With a die, from our perspective, we could say that it’s just some defect on the production line that caused the die to be unfair.
Entirely seriously. Read your message again and you’ll see that it’s phrased as though we’re in the middle of some discussion.
As for the substance, I’ll say briefly here, because the discussion is unnecessary and seems completely simple to me. A die that lands in a very special pattern was created intentionally for that pattern. Take a die that lands in the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and then repeats the cycle. Do you think that does not indicate intentional guidance? A die that lands on 6, maybe you could explain by some random defect that biases it in that direction. Beyond that, if a die that had been assumed fair and had until now been landing randomly suddenly began landing only on 6, then you would conclude that someone is doing something here.
The structure of the world is far more special than that (especially life), and therefore it is reasonable that it was not created by chance. A random draw of laws of nature will not yield a system of laws that creates life.
Simple, and not really worth a discussion.
Ah, understood. Thanks.
The Rabbi should remember that what is obvious to him is difficult for most people.
?? What discussion???