Comment on coincidence theorists....

Ironically the notion of chance is a science/knowledge stopper, i.e. it is an argument which stops the study of cause and effect and progress in knowledge with respect to patterns and so forth. A scientific view rooted in the study of knowledge and cause and effect would be that the concept of is chance or coincidence are merely illusions brought about by an absence of knowledge.   For instance, some use a coin toss to illustrate the concept of chance. But if chance and coincidence is actually just an illusion brought about ignorance then it can be pointed out that if the trajectory of the coin, its mass, the force it was flipped with and so forth was all known then what people imagine as “chance” disappears as one advances toward a physical knowledge of how the coin will come to rest. 

The main reason that you'd need to invoke or maintain the concept and illusion of chance/nothing is if you were a magician and a charlatan trying to keep knowledge hidden/occult.  Note that the physical knowledge/scientia of how the coin will come to rest was generally formulated and given to people in the language of mathematics by an alchemist and end times "conspiracy theorist" with an interest in ancient pyramid schemes.  But he didn't have to do that.  Newton could have formed a secret/occult/hidden society and so forth or sought to be incorporated into them and the feats of magick they present to "the base" for wealth, mockery and amusement.  Just saying.

Chance/chaos is ignorance, yet it’s typical for supposed proponents of modern "skepticism" to argue as if chance/chaos brings forth order or that nothing is something* which has vast explanatory power with respect to absolutely all there is to know in the world. 

*Or... "order out of chaos," which is just another way of saying that the concept of nothing/chaos/abyss gave birth to something or is the equivalent of something.  Stated another way: "Equality with God, something to be grasped... by nothing but Apollo, lord of the abyss... i.e... .pretty much nothing."  You can state it however you want or act however you want or imagine what you will... but it never seems to be the equivalent of a state of being like: "I AM..."