I said in a later post that the universe is *likely* infinitely large. The quoted portion of text was a result of an omission on my part.
Secondly, why do you think the opinion of one scientist represents the truth? I could point you towards scientists who think that women can't truly be raped, evolution is false, dinosaurs co-existed with people, etc.
I could also point you towards Lawrence Krauss, one of the most respected physicists on the planet, who does not believe the conditions on earth were fine-tuned for us.
Your own bias against the concept of materialism causes you to seek out these scientists who are often on the fringe, such as Eben Alexander and Deepak Chopra. You are not even remotely objective. You very rarely cite anyone credible.
You are so dense that I don't even know at this point where to begin. Let me give you some facts for the highlighted part one last time.
1. It is a fact and not an opinion that Quantum Mechanics have measured the observable Universe. New flash for you clearly.
2. It is a fact that we don’t know if the Universe is infinite. Saying that ‘it’s most likely infinite’ is highly speculative and intellectually dense.
3. It’s also a fact that a planet that supports life is an extremely rare occasion and here’s why:
(This is of course from the presentation)
If you take the most optimistic scenario to support life on a planet in a Universe and the odds of randomly matching any human DNA would be equal to drawing each Ace of Spade from 1 billion card of decks. (do you now see how rare an event that is?).
Therefore, it’s not ‘reasonably’ possible that life was created randomly by any known chemical or physical reactions. It would have to overcome that staggering odds to create just one simple life form and I am not even talking about humans at this point.
Anyway, do me a favour. Stop quoting me. You don’t interest me; you bore me in fact; moreover, I learn nothing from you. If you don’t do that I will simply ignore you.