Is the Universe Fine Tuned for Life?

I said nothing about "seeing is believing," that's not even a straw man, it's not even relevant in an incomplete position. I was making comment on statistics and valuation of nulls for stochastic processes to arrive at a distribution which reflects meaningful information about the process it was attempting to describe, and why in the case of "Fine Tuning" it fails for all & then more reasons than the drake equation does. This has nothing ado with a thing's electromagnetic spectrum interactivity.

Oh I see, you are the "Seeing is believing" type. If that is the case than you are not a scientist. 90% of all things cannot be Seen to be proven such as radio wave to molecules and atoms etc but they all exist nevertheless.

In science, we use logic and reasoning to prove things.

Human life has just barely begun!

It has yet to spread far and wide... That is where the universe comes in.

It is not a piss poor job, this job is simply beyond your comprehension.

Like some great poet once said:

If I want, I can draw up the map of the spectacle in mere words
But that grandeur scenery is far beyond your frail comprehension.

No, my entire point is that no one knows that yet. You included. You never presented anything scientifically for your case, the most anyone has for this is the same exact things they have for the drake "equation," thus GIGO, Garbage in Garbage out stochastic scenarios. Emotion shouldn't be involved at all, does my thinking tsunamis are a bad thing stop earthquakes from hurtling them at Indonesia? Emotional appeal, like it's emergent twin, appeal to consequence is a logical fallacy for a reason.

How cool would it be to find a civilization that lived on a planet surrounded by a toxic (to us) gas that they need to live, but find oxygen incredibly deadly. I bet we would look at each other in complete marvel trying wrap our heads around the idea of living in such a toxic environment :P

MeX2004...this video never mentioned all life, but rather only human life. The percentage of inhabitable area on earth, for example, is much higher than the number in the video if you include all life on earth and not just human. So the real point is, if there is a God and created this universe for mankind to thrive, he did a piss poor job.

freecube...first, why evolve if you don't have to? second, how do you know things have not evolved from these extremophiles? ...simply because we find them still inhabiting the earth today doesn't mean that they never evolved. Meaning another species of extremophile may have evolved from the currently surviving one's, they both simultaneously thrived, but then the evolved species later died off leaving only the original. Evolution doesn't mean only the new species survives.

The only way you can stand by your position is if you think that the none too extraordinary conditions that our planet has that make it able to support any type of life are completely unrepeatable on any of the billions of other planets in the galaxy (let alone beyond).

It's even easier to simply point out that we necessarily must live on a plane that we can... live on. No species *could* evolve on a planet that couldn't support life to sit around saying, "Wow this place sucks".

Your point?

Factors shifted to favour our current genre of beings, but suppose the earth's athmosphere was full of methane? IE: like some of the outer solar system planets. Yes it would be toxic to us, but not to them.

It's just as possible, it just didn't happen in our experience, and so wa define life by our narrow standards.

I was presenting both sides of the coin, emotional as well as scientific.

No matter how you slice it, you will find that the universe was created for us human beings. It comes complete with life support, living quarters, backyard, playground, waterfall, jungles & forest, mountains and deserts, the whole package deal. As you can see, not everything is suitable for actual living but are necessary nevertheless.

Point is, that Universe is very habitable, you just don't know it yet.