So yea, the odds of life evolving to something genetically compatible with humanity when we did might be tiny, but we aren’t the only possible form of intelligent multicellular tool using life and it could have happened +/- a few billion years. Given earth starting 5 billion years ago the odds of some intelligent civilization eventually showing up might actually be fairly high, we just don’t have enough data to know.
Now that said, if we did find alien life, how would your feelings about God change?
Still labeling pre Big Bang as SpaceTimeTime or calling that Space Time and relabeling what we experience as local space time doesn’t really matter here. The point is our Big Bang could be happening infinite times in a multiverse without beginning or end. That’s one possibility where there isn’t anything conscious to point to as a GOD just the same kind of things which make up physical reality.
There’s no mention of a ton of very significant things we now know to be real in any holy book. Why isn’t that stuff enough “proof” they’re “fake”?
I also reject your out-of-hand assertion that whatever one thinks about the world's existence has the same meaning to someone as your mythical being has to you.
How blown would your mind be if I posited to you that what you call "GOD" is the universe? Your holly book says he is everywhere and everything all at once, does it not? That "He is within all of us", and yet we are the universe observing itself. He came about out of nowhere with no trace of origin? We don't know what caused the big bang, it just happened.
If aliens exist, it's because the universe "allowed" it to happen (aka the statistical probability is high enough for it to occur or we would not be alive having this conversation) not some conscious divine being.
Anyway something more interesting you said was the belief that all life came from a single cell. It’s unclear if all life ever to exist on earth had cells or if they evolved later. Also, we can’t tell if life showed up independently fairly frequently but was out competed or just once.
This is somewhat dependent on how life is defined. Prions replicate, but aren’t generally considered alive, yet being fairly simple they should have shown up quite frequently due to random chance. The more complex self replicating matter must be to be considered alive the higher the hurdle for life to have formed randomly but the more likely for simpler self replicating matter to evolve into life. Yet, saying evolution of non living mater results in life seems to twist the meaning around unpleasantly.
PS: Perhaps we should have a new definition between dead matter and living matter which is self catalyzing in the right environment. With viruses or prions siting at the complex side and crystals at the simple end.
Consider it in terms of reactions per second - take the likelyhood of non-formation of replicators (call it 99.999999999% - because it actually does not matter), to the power of the number of reactors, to the power of the number of seconds since the universe began.
The likelyhood that no self-replicators form rapidly plummets to a vanishing value.
Not in a cell, but in porous rock around the hydrothermal vents (at the bottom of the ocean).
Given the exponentialish 'population' growth of chemical soup, coupled with the fact that the very low likelyhood of a localised self-replicator forming, by the time second place came about the game would already be over.
Far more likely is preserved 'mutations' to chemical replicators leading to divergent forms of demi-life.
That’s presumably true, but it means there could have been a very large number of losers not just 1. Aka if extremely primitive life showed up once on earth then it might be a rare event, if it happened 100 trillion times then most planets with the right conditions will have some form of life.
If the spread is too wide then the chance of spatiotemporally cohabiting civilizations of distinct origins will be diminishingly small.
But I don't actually think that the planetary parameters that allow for replication are (in any way) specific to earth.
Also, the fact that you think a being of unfathomable complexity can just be, but everything else needs a source is rather silly.
(The other possibility being infinite regression, which is equally silly.)
A chemical soup and enough porous rocks down at the bottom of the ocean to operate as reactors powering endothermic reactions.
These are spread across the entire surface of the earth.
If, by chance, some set of reactions occur forming molecules (or groups of molecules) that catalyse their own formation, then you have constrained self-replication.
Once you have this - and you only need it once, there's an exponential (s-curve really) boom in the prevalence of the chemicals in question.
Any changes to these molecules that preserve the self-replicating nature of the soup will be preserved to an extent and those changes that improve self-replication will not only be preserved but will begin to outpace the parents.
If, for example, I stick a little hydrogen on the front of a structure it'll develop the ability to trace along ion lines.
A chemical soup that hunts its own food.
Of course, these mutations can lead to divergence - which eventually leads to a pseudo-competition.
Step by step, piece by piece, complexity builds up.
Structures integrate and develop the ability to funnel 'food' to where it needs to go for transformation.
And if it is possible for this to happen, then given enough time and enough distinct reactors, it is not simply possible - it is absolutely inevitable.
Basically, in an emergent adversarial environment running late to the party gets you eaten.
I don't see why this has to be the case. If unlikely conditions are correct for something unlikely to occur, then it's not longer unlikely to occur multiple times.
E.g. if you play around with chemical reactions and you hit the right conditions, it usually happens all over the place, and not just one molecule combining.