Quote Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
It's not that complicated. We are the only humans that exist is this entire whatever that we live in. Not only us, but animals don't exist anywhere outside of earth. Plants and trees don't live anywhere else but on earth. Everything that exists on earth ONLY exists on earth. Does it rain anywhere else besides earth? Are there bodies of water oustide of earth? So for all of you that keep asking for proof I say, LOOK AROUND. Are we not here? So why is everything only on earth? It's not that there's no proof (cause there's plenty) it's that you don't believe the proof.
There's a considerably more obvious answer here that you would be able to see if you didn't already decide to only consider what supports your presuppositions. There are trillions, upon potentially infinite planets in this universe. There will inevitably be millions of different environments, different distances from their suns, for the trillions of planets. Of these millions and millions of types of environments, you innevitably get some rare ones that are ideal to support life. That doesn't mean Earth is the only one, it means it is a rare type because it's only one in a million of the infinite planets that have life-supporting conditions.
To believe the universe is created to support life is incredibly egocentric. Life exists because the infinite variations in planet types will innevitably have a unique substance that grows in complexity due to certain action mechanisms. There could be aspects of existence in planets in other galaxies, that are just as complex as life or even consciousness, but not life at all; just something we can't comprehend. Though life is innevitably one of the most complex aspects in the universe. There has to be one.

Not to mention, I don't know how you can claim to know that there are no other life supporting planets when we've only closely observed 26 thus far (last time I heard, which was about 2 years ago).

There is no fact that will convince an unbeliever unless God works in the heart.
Can you not see the obvious euphamism this train of thought really is? You cannot percieve the proof of god, unless you already believe in him. You're saying that one should make a completely unobjective decision by already assuming that god exists before interpreting the evidence.

1. god exists.
2. lets take a look at the evidence.
3. the evidence points to god because I've already decided he exists.
4. therefor he exists.

I don't understant why you can't grasp the concept of interpreting everything to match up with your presuppositions, and why that doesn't work.