Well, again, the existence of multiple roulette wheels does not change the odds of wheel number one landing on the number 7 a thousand times in a row even if it happened on every other roulette wheel in the universe. The only thing this speaks to is that the existence of potentially life containing planets increases the odds that life could arise spontaneously. It doesn't change the odds for any given planet.
Absolutely correct. But I get a sense you have some anthropocentric fixation on our planet, Earth, as being special. It might well be special if it's the only planet in a trillion, or one hundred trillion similar planets in the universe, that has spontaneously developed life. But no-one can know that, at present.
However, if you are betting on a roulette wheel, and you are offered the advantage of the same bet being placed on another hundred, or thousand, or million roulette wheels, with no extra cost, are you really concerned about which roulette wheel gives you the winning number? Does it matter at all? You've won. That's the point.
And even if your point were true, and life arose here without the intervention of a creator, it still does not disprove that one exists. It only proves he did not create life. Here. This would be contrary to Judeo-Christian belief but not theistic belief in general. And it has been part and parcel of the materialist to say: "We have thought of ways this can happen without God, so there is no God." This is possibly the biggest flaw in all of their arguments and it is thoroughly illogical.
I think here, you are falling into the trap that I've observed most religious believers are in. Because they have a belief in something (a God), despite a lack of clear evidence which could substantiate such a belief, they assume that an atheist has an opposite belief that a God does not exist, because of a lack of clear evidence that a God does not exist.
Here is the source of the confusion. In fact, I have the impression that many small dictionaries describe atheism as a
belief that there is no God. Perhaps this is just a typical confusion of common, vernacular language, but from my own perspective, I see atheism as a
lack of belief; a lack of belief in 'theism' or a God.
There is a very clear distinction between a
lack of belief and a
belief. Perhaps the problem here is that those who have a belief in a God, which they need emotionally, and which motivates perhaps most of their activities on this planet, cannot imagine how someone could function without a belief. Such people therefore assume that someone who professes a
lack of belief, must actually have a belief in the 'lack of'. Hope this is not too confusing for you.
Whilst most scientist, and people with an appreciation of the benefits of scientific inquiry, might have a so-called
belief in the effectiveness of rationality, logic and the scientific methodology, the effects and consequences of such beliefs are intrinsically provisional and are subject to continual change in accordance with new evidence that comes to light.
Religious beliefs, on the other hand, tend to be dogmatic and inflexible. Personally, I prefer to believe (provisionally) in things that can be proved or disproved, rather than things which can be neither proved nor disproved.
I'm still getting the sense, George, that you are failing to distinguish between a belief in things that
can be proved, as opposed to a belief in things which
cannot be proved. These are two entirely different categories.