> There is likely simple basic life as advanced as bacteria around the universe

What is the basis for this assertion?

single-cell "life" can be so simple that scientists can create it in a lab "SpudCell"

* https://www.science.org/content/article/lab-created-spudcell...

somewhere among 2 TRILLION planets in our galaxy there is a planet with enough atmosphere and magnetosphere to protect it from space radiation so there is likely bacteria

but complex life far more difficult and unlikely, very rare, as explained in the PBS Space Time I linked above, the "Cambrian Explosion"

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

if there are viruses and fungi out there however, they could mutate eventually with enough permutations and outside stressors

that video explains the huge leap forward with DNA vs simple protein patterns

"SpudCell" already has 36 genes; the information encoded there basically cannot occur by random processes. There is still an enormous complexity gap between it and abiotic systems.

> somewhere among 2 TRILLION planets in our galaxy there is a planet with enough atmosphere and magnetosphere to protect it from space radiation so there is likely bacteria

I reject this conclusion; it certainly isn't justified by the links you provided.

you don't think there is even single-cell life anywhere else but Earth?

why would Earth be that incredibly unique?

it's even plausible Earth was accidentally seeded by panspermia (bacteria on comets)

>why would Earth be that incredibly unique?

I think the answer to the question is easy if we consider quantum mechanics. It says every possible random event manifests in some universe. This means that an event or combination of events, no matter how incredibly unique, manifests in some universe.

Imagine the very first cell. Imagine that all the particles of that cell coming into the exact spatial location by pure random chance. It is a chain of incredibly random events. But it does not matter. QM says that it manifests in some universe.

So, We are just in one such universe. Of course, there might be universes where this incredibly random event have manifested more than once. But since then number of such universes are minuscule when compared to the number of universes where it happened only once, there is an overwhelming chance that we, as one conscious species, finds ourselves in a universe where life originated only once.

In the same manner, there could be universes where an entire brain assembled itself purely randomly. But the number of such worlds are a small fraction of the worlds where a single cell formed, and followed the relatively simple procedure of natural selection and end up as beings who can ask such kinds of questions.

Sorry, when you make an assertion, you don't get to demand I justify questioning it. You need to explain why I should believe you.

Your reversal of burden of proof is a red flag that you don't have a good argument.

IMO, it is quite plausible that OoL is extremely unlikely and that our solar system is the only place where life occurs in the visible universe. Not proved, of course, but the possibility is by no means unreasonable.

wasn't demanding, just wanted to hear what your own logic was instead

but it's pointless to go any further I guess as it's getting outside science

the weak anthropic principle can't be falsified so it cannot be argued

I don't think we'll ever hear from "ET" but I do think it's perfectly plausible to find single-celled or simple bacteria elsewhere someday (ie. Europa, comet or asteroid)

If I were saying we were definitely rare or unique, you'd have an argument.

But I'm not doing that -- I'm saying it's a possibility that is consistent with evidence.

The claim that life is common is different. For that, you really need to present an argument that life being uncommon is ruled out.

In your last sentence there you've retreated from "life is common" to "it's plausible life is common". Sure (within the constraints of the Fermi Argument, but that has uncertainties.)