Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

That's simply the fallacy of false equivalence. Yes, life in the Universe is possible, but that doesn't mean your favored theory about how life arrived in the Universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable.

The probability has been calculated, more often than not, at many, many times greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. There has been no scientific proof provided showing that abiogenesis is possible. It is simply a faith that many scientists and atheists have that it *must* have happened that way because of evolution. Abiogenesis because evolution is not a theory of origins, it is blind faith.

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that.

You know that life exists but what you don't know is how or why. To rule out at the least a possible designer is simply personal bias; there isn't a logical reason to do so. There is plenty of positive evidence for Gods existence, there isn't any for abiogenesis. Faith in God is reasonable, faith in abiogenesis is simply blind faith.

Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

A God existing does not violate anything we know about the Universe. I think you're confusing mechanism with agency. Just because we understand the mechanics of something does not rule out an agency behind it. It would be like taking apart a car and then saying that because we understand how the car is put together that gasoline does not exist.

The bible says that everyone is provided evidence of Gods existence, and that people suppress the truth because they love their sin. It's not really about evidence; I know atheists who have had out of body experiences who deny they have a soul.

No. Not everyone thinks like a theist.

I have no idea whether life exists on other planets or not. I can theorise about the probability of it, but that's as far as I'm willing to commit.

As for the nonsense "roll a seven on a six sided die" argument... I really don't know if you're trolling or just genuinely have no understanding of logic, math, probability, statistics, etc.

Here's a hint: in order to create life, you don't need a seven. If you did you wouldn't be reading this. We exist, therefore by definition life in the universe is possible.

Now, I'm perfectly willing to grant that it might be extraordinarily improbable. The video tells us that the latest evidence is that there are around 20,000,000,000 sun size stars and probably about 4,000,000,000 earth like planets. Now, the video gives the odds of life on each one at 0.1% (and then somehow comes up with 1 million instead of 4 million, but I digress).

So we have 4 billion planets that might possibly have earth like life. But let's say that abiogenesis is really, really improbable. In fact, let's say, it's 1 in 4 billion. We've been testing out the various abiogenesis theories for a while now, but I doubt we've conducted anything like 4 billion separate experiments, so it's really no surprise that we haven't observed it.

But it might be even more unlikely. Maybe it's 1 in 400 billion! Seems pretty unlikely, but let's roll with it. There are still 200 billion galaxies out there. Even if only 1% of them are like the milky way that's still 8 billion billion potential life bearing planets. I don't think it's a stretch to say that some of them could have life.

You don't need a seven, but maybe you do need an edge, or a corner!

Do you understand the difference between what I think is probable based on observed facts and "taking something on faith"?

And as for god? Well, we know for certain that life exists, so it's not unreasonable to assume it might exist elsewhere. But we have zero empirical evidence for god. None, zip, zilch, nada. Does that mean god definitely doesn't exist? No, I can't prove that. Is it probable that god exists? No, it would violate everything we know about the universe. That doesn't mean we're not wrong, but you'd think that something as powerful as a literally omnipotent entity would leave some evidence of it's existence.

As Dawkins said when asked what he would say if he died and met god, "why did you go to such trouble to hide yourself?"

Now you're taking the position of the theist and I am taking the position of the atheist. The size of the Universe really has no bearing if you only have a six sided die and you need to role a seven. Your creation story virtually guarantees alien life, but only so long as abiogenesis could plausibly happen somewhere else (it couldn't happen once plausibly, let alone multiple times by the way). But in spite of how implausible that is you take it on faith that they're out there and you use the traditional theist line to the atheists assertion that they've seen no evidence for God, that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Quite a reversal, wouldn't you say?

Part four (of seven) talking about their return to the modern world:

You are quite right @MilkmanDan - after seven random shuffles the chances of the top card staying at the top the whole time would be 1/128, which should be sufficient - it would probably sink down a bit sooner, and thus be distributed evenly throughout the deck when you shuffle it that many times. The top card and bottom cards each have a 1/2 chance of staying where they are after a single riffle shuffle.
And I do have a quite decent riffle shuffle; I just had a silly math brain fart.
But hey - what would the sift be if everyone thought things thoroughly over before posting?

I disagree with the insinuation that that is intuitive...

I think to answer @Zawash 's concerns, the seven riffle shuffles is probably close to the "sweet spot" because even a card on the very bottom or very top will likely move at least 1-2 places away from those extreme positions (top or bottom) in a single shuffle. Then, on the second shuffle, it is likely to move even further -- the probable "distance moved" is even higher and goes up rapidly away from the extreme edges. By the time that you've riffle shuffled 7 times, it should easily have shifted far enough away from either extreme end to be sufficiently "random".

Sorta like the old elementary school math question of would you rather have a million dollars NOW, or one penny today and then double that amount each day for the next month. We tend to underestimate the value of option 2 (over $5 million after 30 days, $10m+ for 31) because our brains are much better at grasping/predicting geometric growth than exponential growth.

That doesn't have anything to do with "inability to perform a proper riffle shuffle", just a very human tendency to underestimate exponential changes over a few iterations.

*science. I myself combine riffle shuffling and overhand shuffling - a couple of riffle shuffles, a couple of overhand shuffles, repeat.
The riffle shuffling has a really, really bad and particular weakness: Cards at the top of the deck tend to stay at the top of the deck, and cards at the bottom of the deck tend to stay at the bottom. So - riffle shuffling alone (even 7 times) isn't good enough. So - if you start with (for example) the ace of hearts at the bottom, it will tend to stay at the bottom even after seven riffle shuffles.
This should have been mentioned - it is simple math.