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.

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…

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?

Hello stranger:)

This post evidences receipt of your latest reply.

Shortly, I will address your contentions with an alternative written explanation.

(I need some time to consider your conclusions. I don’t simply disagree for the sake of disagreement.)

Note: Call me stubborn, but don’t call me inconsiderate:)

b. absolve the Creator from being a negligent parent?

Excellent question!!!

Across the span of twenty-years have I endeavored to answer that very question. And yes, I have both answered that question and questioned my answer to that question. However, what I am now questioning is whether or not I can provide an answer which will satisfy your mind like my mind is now mostly satisfied.

Next, I then question whether or not I should provide my answer. After all, the satisfaction that I derive from my answer is founded upon twenty-years of intermittent examination and experience. As a result, that intellectual journey in the pursuit of a logical conclusion is a part of why my answer is satisfactory to me.

So, I must ask: Do you want my answer or would you prefer to know why that question should be answered?

a. protect us from the possible tyranny of an all powerful Creator?

The answer to question “b” can preclude question “a”. Therefore I will focus on question”b”.

Well, if we were predetermined to have this conversation then you have no other choice but to share your answer with me :o)

Before you do, I would like to assure you that I will not accept, deny or adopt it, even if your answer satisfies my mind to the full.

I will simply carry it with me, ponder on it, filter it, doubt it, perhaps even for twenty years.

Whether you tell me or not, I would like to thank you just for contemplating to share something that took you so long to conclude.