Chance as a sole-product of the Universe

Chance does not need a oppertunity to be a possiblity ..
its always there ..if you have nothing then the chance of there being a blue fish is 0% ..
the chance of there being nothing is 100%....if the universe was just planet earth the the change of finding a blue fish 100% ( i know i have seen blue fishes )
the chance of there being nothing is 0%Also chance is time locked .. .. the chance of England winning the world cup in 1966 is 100% ( cos its happened ) the chance os winnining in 1970 is 0% ,the chance in 2006 is hmm%at time= "now" we can make a good chance calulation
at time="future" wecan make a chance calultaion but there are more uncertain factors( chances) so our calulation is less certain .
at time ="past

sorry but no philosophical the best answer is the universe exsist because thats what it does .. the reason that the universe is here is to allow exsistance .. not of us , but of everything , including chance .if you insist on a god , then answer the following ,philosophical of course....why did god create the universe ?...was there a chance that god might not have created the universe ?...what is the chance of god creating other universes?...where did this god come from ?...is this god inside or outside the universe ?

does Popper's definition run into the problem of infomation .. to make the prediction with the highest degree of precision for a event .. ie which make of car will be the next to drive past my window .. the amout of infomation needed to apply the laws of nature and to describe the past leading to the event becomes so great as to be the sum of the universe plus its self ...?

your are using a false statement , if you are , as you claim looking philosophical at a whole .."I don't need Paul K to wash my underwear, therefore he doesn't exist."you need the universe to exsist for your underpants to washed , Paul K is part of that universe , therefore you need Paul K , otherwise you do not have the universe in which your underpants can be washed in.

Quote from Mike the wiz
"Time: An intention for events to unfold. (which then means that events are one of the intentions of the designer)Gravity: the plan is that it should hold things downFriction: so that things won't slide infinitely.the vacuum of space: the plan is that a vacuum radiates heat, so that lifeforms won't be burnt so that planets can orbit at a correct path, so that water isn't boiled.Light/star: The plan would be to give energy and heat to life.Since time shows that it's only reason is for events to unfold, then it is reasonable to make the leap to say that these other laws will work for events to unfold. Even so, without making this leap anybody can see that these statements are true."**********************************************************************
this is an example of reverse , im the center , thinking .. all of the above can exsist fine with out any purpose , it is you that assign's them one ..friction is NOT there to stop things sliding , friction is there due to the nature of to the interacting matter ,gravity is not to hold things down , who say things need to be held down .. if there was no gravity effect , then the universe who still be there .. but using different laws ..vacum of space so that life can exsist .. ?? who said life should exsit , most of the universe is the vacum of space between the stars.. have not found must evidence of life .. therefore ist very unlikly that life is its reason .. evidence would favour its there to allow star to be seperate from each other( side note ... given the evidence if life is the purpose of the universe it a very bad design .!!)light /star to give energy for life .. hmm nope i think the more logical view would be life makes use of what ever it can find as an energy soruce ..eg light or thermail or chemical ... if fact most star are totally unsuitable for life as we know it ..ok now time ... given that all the time we can observe is past time .. then clearly the reason for time is to stop things being changed .. i mean you go change the past hhmmm .. and is time not just a mapping tool to define something within the universe .unless you assume you are the reason for the universe none of your points are valid .

if ,as you claim, chance does not exist outside the space / time universe , but a creator does , it must follow that such a creator has no free will , as they have no optionsno chance ..means the creator cannot choose to create the universe as we know it or to create one that is more suitable for human life , there is no chance of them creating the universe 1 atom different .... thus the creator is reduced to a funtion of set laws .. hmm like a big bang ..if creator has free will they can choose to do A or b , .. there is a chance they will pick A and a chance they will pick B .. thus chance exist outside .. which means your assumptions is incorrect .. this meaning no creator ..

Quote "This is all I require. This is why atheists have put forward ideas that work from big numbers; because they know that the fine or coarse tuned nature of the universe, would be too remarkable as a one off. It therefore either was designed, or CHANCE allowed for big numberse. (Because it is proved that big numbers negate probability)Example; the lottery. Impossible odds, YET someone wins."sorry but you miss understand the meaning of chance ..how many lottery ticket do you need to buy to win the lottery .. answer 1, the rest is a series of event that follow making your ticket the winning one , you do not need big numbers , now it may be that the result is one of many possibliities , but that does not mean you can not get it with a single go ..if you wish to run back time you can where do you point to the bit that caused life .. ...you only need to start one universe to get to have this one ..quote "It's not that life should exist, it's that it is a fact that life does exist. A fact which should not be ignored."well ,the stars seem to ignore it , so do the dust clouds ,the gamma rays , the atoms making up your head .scientist look for life in planets that look like they could support life ....hmmm how odd where to they look for stars ? where do they look for sub atomic particals , where do they look for 5th 6th 7 th dimensions .. when you look for a taxi do you look on the street of in you ear ??