Are you thinking of Einstein's comment about god not playing dice? Because that's perfectly consistent with what I was saying: he was implicitly assuming a kind of "designed" universe, in which case of course we have a stronger reason to expect that all features of the universe have some purpose.
(Although this is still subject to Gödel's caveat, that even intentionally constructed systems end up with features that weren't part of the intention, but rather are unavoidable consequences of the design.)
But if you don't make that religious assumption, then the expectation that all features should have a purpose becomes unsupportable. There's simply no reason to expect that, and even the notion of features having a "purpose" is misleading metaphorical language at best.
Back to the subject of what Einstein would say, we should also keep in mind what he wrote in a private letter in 1954:
> “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.”
I'm not aware of Einstein having written anything attempting to reconcile this with his previously expressed pantheistic views and the related views implied by the "play dice" comment. That would be tough to reconcile.
Another relevant issue here is that Einstein's dice comment was objecting to non-determinism in quantum physics. But in the nearly 70 years since his death, everything that has been discovered still points to inherent non-determinism. There are some theories/interpretations that would eliminate this, like superdeterminism and De Broglie–Bohm theory. But even if such a theory satisfies Einstein's concern, it doesn't affect what I wrote - such theories don't address the justification for features of the universe, they simply model what we observe.
tl;dr: what I originally wrote is essentially a tautology that neither you nor Einstein can refute.
(Although this is still subject to Gödel's caveat, that even intentionally constructed systems end up with features that weren't part of the intention, but rather are unavoidable consequences of the design.)
But if you don't make that religious assumption, then the expectation that all features should have a purpose becomes unsupportable. There's simply no reason to expect that, and even the notion of features having a "purpose" is misleading metaphorical language at best.
Back to the subject of what Einstein would say, we should also keep in mind what he wrote in a private letter in 1954:
> “The word God is for me nothing but the expression of and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.”
I'm not aware of Einstein having written anything attempting to reconcile this with his previously expressed pantheistic views and the related views implied by the "play dice" comment. That would be tough to reconcile.
Another relevant issue here is that Einstein's dice comment was objecting to non-determinism in quantum physics. But in the nearly 70 years since his death, everything that has been discovered still points to inherent non-determinism. There are some theories/interpretations that would eliminate this, like superdeterminism and De Broglie–Bohm theory. But even if such a theory satisfies Einstein's concern, it doesn't affect what I wrote - such theories don't address the justification for features of the universe, they simply model what we observe.
tl;dr: what I originally wrote is essentially a tautology that neither you nor Einstein can refute.