Chance or no chance
Argento and I have locked horns on the above, titled subject. This debate is intended for those who are reasonably sceptical of both positions. As for me, I recognize the merit of both views; but I am finding it very difficult to draw a line in the proverbial sand of the certainty of either. Consequently I would that all participants would forego the typical CD mentality of outright animosity.
Chance
Side Score: 8
|
 |
No chance
Side Score: 1
|
|
|
|
|
I am assuming that by "authors" you mean the organisers of the game. Please correct me if I am wrong. The following responses are made with this assumption in mind. There are two principal parties of all lotteries, they are: the author/s of the lottery and the lottery players. And of the two there is only one party which does not lose: the author. The fact that the lottery organisers take out a small portion of the total ticket sales does not alter the element of chance required in winning the final jack pot. Do we call it a game of chance because there are many losers No. It's a game of chance because there is no code that dictates the final outcome. The combination of "causes" that will yield a winner happens by no ultimate cause other than chance. or do we call it a game of order because the authors will always derive the benefits of the intended purpose of the lottery? You have to separate the game itself from the business model which provides the game. The cost of the ticket effectively carries two parts: Your payment to the organisers, and your contribution to the jackpot. The game itself does not include the organisers, it's between the players, the jack pot, and chance. Obviously, the players are taking a chance that they will win or lose. Agreed. (Is this an admission that chance exists?) But the authors are not leaving their benefits of the lottery to chance. The authors are benefiting from the business model, not the actual game. Side: Chance
Agreed. (Is this an admission that chance exists?) Yes, artificially, and this is the crux of my contention. Chance is an attribute that is predicated of our knowledge. Chance is not an attribute that is predicable of any subject other than the knowledge of man. We can’t prove that something exists by chance because our knowledge of its origin is derived from ignorance. Scientifically, our minds tend to associate cause and consequence. However, there comes a point that that knowledge is based on a purely metaphysical, a priori and not empirical, knowledge. Consequently, if we assert that something exists by chance, we are equally asserting that we do not know the cause of why something exists. After all, all that exists must have a cause. And chance is not the cause of anything. So yes, we may rightfully use ‘chance’ as a term to describe willful or inescapable ignorance, but we can’t prove that chance is knowledge. Ultimately, chance is equivalent to ignorance. Therefore, chance is the absence of our knowledge. Whereby shall I infer order? Nothing which exists is both the cause and consequence of its existence. And in the case of our personal, individuality, every attribute that is predicable of you and I must have a cause that is not predicable of chance. My conclusion: All things exist as a consequence of a cause; chance is not the cause of any consequence. Rather it describes the limits of our knowledge of cause and consequence and/or our hopes. All of which evidences that ‘chance’ exists only in our minds apart from any external empirical evidence. I’ll await your reply before I continue… Side: No chance
I first wrote a lengthy reply to your post but in the end I think it all boils down to one thing: If every chain of events (causes) is predetermined and somehow coded by the Creator, then how can we speak of freedom and personal responsibility? Furthermore, if chance does not exist then what is there to a. protect us from the possible tyranny of an all powerful Creator? b. absolve the Creator from being a negligent parent? Side: Chance
|
No. Winning the lottery means winning the money. To win the money you must have all six numbers. If you buy tickets for all the possible number combinations you can eliminate the chance of not having the correct numbers. But if you do that, you will have spent more than the value of the jack pot, so you have not "won the lottery". That is both true and false. But that is not the reason why I asked the question. Let me now reason from what I think I understand about your position concerning chance. There are two principal parties of all lotteries, they are: the author/s of the lottery and the lottery players. And of the two there is only one party which does not lose: the author. So, is the lottery a game of chance or a game of order? Do we call it a game of chance because there are many losers, or do we call it a game of order because the authors will always derive the benefits of the intended purpose of the lottery? Obviously, the players are taking a chance that they will win or lose. But the authors are not leaving their benefits of the lottery to chance. Which is it, chance or order? (I’ll move on to the question of egg fertilization after we settle the above.) Side: No chance
|
