However, with that being said, we can throw out roughly 2 thirds of the stars in the universe for being either too close (too much radiation) or two far away (heavier elements are too scarce) from their galactic centers. Of these (extrapolating from what we've learned from Kepler) one in five may have planets in the habitable zone of its respective solar system. Of these, perhaps one in eight is a rocky planet with the right mass. Of these, perhaps nine out of ten were around for the billion years or so of chance chemical interactions we think were necessary to produce life. Of these perhaps one in 100 has the liquid liquid core, magnetic field, and cosmic bombardment period necessary to deposit and retain water on its surface. Of these, perhaps one in a billion has a suitable moon large enough to control its seasons and create the tides we think were necessary for the initial steps to life. And so it goes, until the conditions necessary to produce life are not just rare, but possibly a unique exception to the rule. Nevertheless, statistics suggests that, given a wide enough sample, it is true that a small number of candidates will exist. But at that point you still have to take it on faith that if the conditions necessary for life exist it will always or at least usually do so. We are not there yet.
Ah yes modern man throws up a few instruments and says see that all there is.
Hubris.
“My point was that if life arose once on this planet it should of arose more than once on this planet”
Point of fact it did. There was a period where the Earth’s atmosphere was methane. Prior to that there was life, and after the methane period ended there was life again. Don’t ask me to detail this for you, please.