well the fact that there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000+ planets in the universe pretty much refutes that.

plus the article forgot to compare that to the chances of an all power all knowing all present deity existing which is about 1 in infinity,,

Everything has a very narrow probability if you look at it like that.

The main problem I see with this, is that they are not all independent. Ross gives the probabilities of 0.1 or 0.01 and so on, but these probabilities appear to be involving every galaxy, once you rule out ten per cent, the other probabilities will change. An example can be used with salts in solutions. There are a lot of solutions and in 0.1 of them salt A the probabilities of finding salt B and C in a solution are the same.

Salt Probability

A 0.1

B 0.1

C 0.1

The probability of finding all three, by using the same method as it appears Hugh Ross is using, would give you 0.001. It could be however in every solution you find salt A , salt B is found and in half of them salt C is found. That is why the probabilities Hugh Ross gives should be looked at sceptically.

Looking at this list , I am unsure what the probability is supposed to show. If it is supposed to show, the probability of life arising, there are a lot of unnecessary parameters, one being as it mentions intelligent life. This point alone makes me think he isn't talking about life originating.

In the early atmosphere it is thought that there was no free oxygen, this would mean there was no ozone layer, so when a few of the parameters involve the amount of ozone, it also makes me think he cannot be talking about the origin of life.

Also looking through the list, there are a few on the levels of certain gases in the atmosphere. One being the oxygen another being carbon dioxide, these have been changed because of life on this planet. So if he is talking about things once life has been here, then they are irrelevant.

Another thing he mentions is the oxygen-nitrogen ratio in the atmosphere. This has changed throughout history. Also in the early atmosphere because there wouldn't of been free oxygen, so whatever he is arguing, it seems it would be irrelevant.

The first point would be enough to look sceptically on the probabilities, but considering it appears that there are some irrelevant probabilities for if he was arguing about the probability of life originating. It would appear that his conclusions can't be trusted. If you feel any of my points are wrong please respond to correct me.

When I made it, I was mostly thinking about the Judeo-Christian God, because that is the God most people believe in. However, this question could extend to any God, if someone wants to provide any evidence of their God's existence.

You would be correct aha, I'm not going to lie, I find it ridiculous.

Oh, that's sad. Because you won't allow anyone to contradict you, yet I could just as easily say similar things as to why God Doesn't exist. But you would refute that with the shake of a hand, saying " But that's not what the Bible says..."

Which is totally ridiculous. How do we know the Bible is correct? We don't, God knows how many times it has been translated, by whom, and being written by different people with different ideas at different times, it's hardly going to be 100% accurate. Not to mention all the gaffs in it!}

But yes, wrong or not, your approach was all wrong. Come back with some solid evidence, that makes logical sense and doesn't rely on my using my imagination, you've got yourself a debate :)

In The Chronicles of Narnia book is well described London's tube system. Does it makes Narnia a real place?