Now, let's look at how reasonable us thinking Chance is why we are here. Can chance reason? Does it have intention? How does it sustain anything? Why should something happen, and continually happen, and why do we find meaning and reason for things in a chance universe? Why does every human being have some idea of morality and how do you make sense of morality from a material or secular humanist position? What does it matter that you exist and what will it matter when you are dead? What hope do you have to offer someone dying of cancer? Why should I be "good" as you define "good?" Why is your view of right and wrong actually "right" or is it? Who are you that I should believe your subjective, relative finite mindset and what you have to offer?
Chance is not an agent. It's math.
Precisely. So, if Chance is not an agent how does anything happen?
Also this is a red herring question, [1] no one says chance can reason [2] nor does our ability to reason have anything to do with the truth value of a universe or existence by chance. It's not a why, either, it's a how. Chance doesn't sustain anything, but again no one says that either.
I asked the question since reason is derived from chance happenstance in your worldview.
[1] Exactly, Chance cannot reason yet if reason does not originate from a necessary Being it must originate through random (chance) processes. Demonstrate how. If, as you say, Chance cannot do anything (which I agree with, since one definition is a mathematical probability) then you have a problem describing a universe that as no agency or intent to it. It explains nothing. It just begs the question.
Also, since there is no reason for the universe (reason requires reasoning being) why do we constantly find reason in the universe, precise reasoning that we use mathematical equations to explain? If there is no sense to the universe because it was not created by an omnipotent, reasoning, and logical Being, then why do we keep finding reason in everything we analyze?
[2] The truth value? Truth value requires conscious, reasoning beings and yet you keep finding truths about the supposed chance universe. As many have pointed out, it is almost like we are thinking Someone else's thoughts after Him!
Since Chance is just a mathematical probability is has no ability or capability to do anything. It is a word we use to describe something we do not understand or what we deem the likelihood of something happening.
But the question is how do reasoning beings come from chance happenstance?
And why? Your worldview cannot explain the "why." It just wants to pontificate the "how" and even there it lacks the certainty to KNOW. It complies views that change over time as we learn more about the universe through our reasoning and inquiry into WHY things work as they do. With a new discovery, the paradigm changes.
The laws of nature are wholly sufficient to sustain the universe, adding something else that's not demonstrable into it demands an explanation.
Laws? How do we have laws if there is no lawgiver? If the universe is a chance happenstance then why should things remain constant? There is no reason they would or should, yet they do. What should that tell you? So why do you have these laws of nature without conscious agency and intent is not logical, is it? It does not compute.
Morality has been answered repeatedly, it's evolutionarily hard wired into any social creature.
It is not explained. If we are just biological functions and our "behavior" is governed by our genetics and the environment, then why should what I do be good or bad? It is just what has been determined by my genetic make-up and when a person murders another person all that is happening is a response to the specific genetic make-up. Why is the good or bad? Where is the free will here?
And how do you get a "best" without an absolute, unchanging, objective standard or reference point? Why is your relative standard any better than any other relative standard?
Look around the world. Whose moral standard is LOGICALLY the right or best standard? Is it the standard that says and legalizes abortion or the one that bans abortion and says it is wrong? Why was Hitler's Germany morally wrong if you can't point to an absolute and fixed reference point, a final measure?