Possible goldilocks planet (The limitations of science)

by David Turell , Monday, April 21, 2014, 15:56 (3867 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: I'm sure Matt sees this line of reasoning just as I do. But we both see all the lines of reasoning, and he and I agree that nobody can say one is "stronger" than any other because unless we get proof either way, there will never be a consensus.
> 
> ATHEIST: If Earth's the only place with life on it, one stroke of luck out of billions of combinations is all it needed. And why would your God create hundreds of habitable planets and only make one inhabited? Ugh, what a waste! But of course, if life is found elsewhere, that proves it's all perfectly natural.
> 
> THEIST: If life on Earth is unique, it must have been specially designed. If life is found elsewhere, as you so rightly asked, why would God only create life on one of his habitable planets? And if "life is everywhere", well, what's the difference? Even the simplest forms are too complex for us to create, so God must have created them and let them loose all over the place instead of just on Earth. 
> 
> Yer takes yer money....-Except for the view that us humans are a very special form of life, and seem to be found in only one place in a vast universe. I'll accept your views for both sides for simple life, but when humans are required for the comparisons, then how do you view the two sides of the argument?