same could be said for God.The number of planets we know of and whether or not they have life is not the major variable in determining the probability of life in the universe, especially given the very small sample size of planets vs. the scope of the universe. There are conditions for life that could have been produced elsewhere and again it just comes down to scope.
Of course there are data points. The scriptures say certain things about God- what he did, how he did it, etc. There is the scope of the universe. And then there is logic. It is much more likely that a God does not exist than a God that came to Earth, sent Jesus, made the planet, and on and on. There are such detailed stories and given the historical context in which these writings appeared and what those stories say, it just does not add up.
I am not great at explaining this, so bear with me. But take the following examples and surely you think the first example is more likely than the second:
1) God exists.
2) A God exists who did x, y, z and made a, b, c.
Option 1 is obviously more likely than 2. This is akin to the argument I am making except up that I am making one which says that a sentient God who cares about humans does not exist.
So you're telling me that a book written by Jewish people four thousand years ago to be an spiritual inspiration, is not an accurate eye witness account of the formation of our planet? That seems very illogical to make such an argument. That is based on a very narrow understanding of God.
Sure you can argue the accuracy of the Bible, but the Bible was written by man, before modern science to explain to man his existence.
If you're argument is that the Bible isn't scientifically accurate dso therefore there can be no God, that is a very illogical argument.
If that isn't your argument, please explain it.
Remember the Bible is not a piece on this chess board. The existence of biblical stories are not data points. I am referring to a creator, not a specific God.