That is how atheist expert and mouthpiece Richard Dawkins accounts for the existence of the universe and everything in it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html
For someone that educated, it is a somewhat surprising statement. Luck has no creative power, no being, no existence. It has no “is-ness”. It cannot be the cause of anything, because it has no substance. It is wishful and fallacious thinking from Dawkins. He cannot account for the origin of the universe, so he is betting on luck. Although he then proceeds to fall into rapturous praise for the omnipotent creative power of natural selection, one cannot help but wonder how luck could have produced that. Where did luck come from? Was it lucky that we had luck in the first place? How does he know when he sees luck, or hears luck? How does he empirically measure luck? How did he come to understand luck as a cause? What caused him to understand that, was it luck? How can it not be luck, since luck was the first cause?
One of the non-negotiable principles of knowledge is the law of causality. It is an extension of the law of non-contradiction. The law of causality has been assumed from the beginning of human existence, and is especially necessary in scientific studies. Scripture assumes the law of causality and there are frequent causal connections. Without this law, we are doomed into a world of chaos. I am sure Mr Dawkins has no arguments with this.
The Christian faith is very clear, God is the first cause. The universe is an effect of that first cause.
Dawkins makes a fundamental mistake in his attacks on God. He assumes, like many atheists, that God is Himself an effect, and therefore has to have a cause. The law of causality does not state that everything has to have a cause, only that every effect needs a cause. An eternal object need not have a cause.
Dawkins has several problems here. He can reject the law of causality, like Hume (almost) did. That, however, would neatly defeat his empiricist worldview. If he affirms the law of causality, he then has to argue a couple of things. He needs to show how and why God is an effect, and how he knows this, in order for God to need a cause. The problem immediately becomes that any understanding of God is that by definition He is eternal and the cause of everything. Dawkins can assert that God needs a cause, but then is he is speaking about something that is not the Christian God, by way of the law of non-contradiction (God cannot be God and not-God). The Christian relies on the harmonious testimony of both Scripture and nature that attest to the effect of the universe, caused by God. Secondly, and actually before he can get to the first argument, he has to show the origin of cause and effect from his worldview of one-time luck.
And I wish him good luck with that.