Hi all

Most of the philosophical/meaningful discussions on VGChartz are but a short step away from the question 'Do you believe in God' which, whilst interesting every now and again, is for the most part overdone. This question is a particularly boring and meaningless one if you do believe in a creator, or multiple creators, so, without trying to be harsh, this thread is pretty much aimed only at those who believe that the universe was created by some means other than the deliberate actions of a deity.

Onto the question, which needs some more wall of text introduction. If you know about the anthropic principle, skip all this and just vote.

The chances of there being conditions for life, seem, on the surface of it, so mind bogglingly unlikely. Pretty much all of the physical constants, if they had slightly different values, would make life impossible. Examples

-Gravity is much weaker than the other fundamental forces. If it was even a small amount stronger, the universe would have collapsed in on itself in much shorter timespan than that required for the formation of soalr systems and the evolution of life. It it were even weaker than it is, solar systems would even be able to form and the universe would be nearly uniform.

- if the nuclear force were slightly stronger, hydrogen would VERY quickly turn to helium, burning out the energy of stars in too short a time for life to evolve.

So we have the observation that the universe being able to support life is incredibly unlikely, and we also have the observation that the universe supports life. It is unreasonable to assume that both are true, and very unreasonable to assume the later is false, thus the first must be incorrect.

There are a variety of response to the apparent 'fine tuning of the constants'

The first of these is that some intelligent being created the universe, and he was intelligent enough to fine tune the constants. If you believe in God(s) then this is easy, for us agnostics/athiests less so.

The second argues that us being able to pose this question means the the unlikihood of this event is irrelevant, if it had not occurred, we would not be here to discuss it. This is a truism, but pretty much avoids the question.

The third is often called the multiverse theory. If it was a 1 in a million chance of the constants having the right values, then we just need to predict the existence of a million universes and an unlikely event becomes likely. These multiple universes could exist side by side or one after another (big bang creates universe, big crunch destroys and sets up the next big bang). This makes sense but is 100% untestable.

The 4th is testable, but not with out current level of science. It merely claims that if there were no carbon, lifeforms of a different type would evolve. The only reason all animals evolved to breath air, drink water and like sunlight is because that's what is common on Earth.

Which makes the most sense to you?

Well, as for your fourth answer, there's scientific proof that Silica-based life could probably be sustained, due to Silica atoms have similar characteristics as Carbon atoms, for creating Sp bonds with hydrogen and other atoms, thus allowing for the appearance of Silicahydrates as well.

Also, not all life on Earth is solely Air-based, nor does it depends on direct sunlight or water as solvent to sustain it's life.

There are a myriad of bacteria that sustain themselves in Anaerobic fashion, be it with the consumption of CO2, NO2 (like the Nitrogen fixating Cyanobacteria) or even in some extreme cases, SO4 as electron acceptors in their mitochondrial respiration chain.
There are also Thermophiles, especially those who live underwater near Hydrothermal vents that sustain themselves exclusively in a process that's similar to Photosynthesis, in which they create glucose and aminoacids via a process called chemosynthesis, by converting heat, methane and sulfur emanating from those vents. 

While these examples are limited to bacteria, there's no indication on the contrary that elates us to the fact that complex (Eukaryotic cells) aren't able to be formed to be sustained in those conditions, but since the establishment of the overall conditions of the planet (78% N2, 21% O2 mixture in air; Water being the overall solvent and sunlight the prime energy source via photonic displacement), the majority of the common bacterial and eukaryotic cell precursors evolved in those conditions.

It's my personal belief that if conditions were different (not only the biological conditions I've just explained, but also electromagnetic forces, nuclear forces (if the electron spin orientation or Quark displacement were slightly different, we would have completely different atoms) or other physical integrity forces), we would still have life, just in a different fashion of that we know today. And we would be wondering if a life form such as ours would exist as well

Combination of the last three.

Indeed, I infact think that the 4th is certainly true to some degree, the majority of the time when people discuss this they don't even consider things such as silicon based lifeforms, and yeah, I think I wrote the description bad (I'm a physicist, not a biologist :P). However, I don't think that 4 alone completely answers the question. The majority of the physical constants would, if changed give life to different forms of life. I doubt carbon, water, air that we would refer to as breathable, or even an amount of sunlight such as we would consider essential is actually required for life. 

But the gravity example, I honestly cant stretch my imagination far enough to allow for intelligent life to evolve in an incredibly short, hot and fiery universe that would exist if gravity was much stronger.

With the life i did in the uni im asking this to myself

Yeah, both Gravity and electromagnetic forces are amongst the primary reasons as to why life as we know it can even exist. 

Even in the contrary situation, where both gravity and electromagnetic forces were below what's currently known and studied, that would prohibit some kind of molecular interactions that are vital for the formation of the more complex molecules (proteins, lipids and so on).

Wan der Walls forces would be non-existant, thus there wouldn't be any kind of dipole forces that could co-adhere weak electrostatic molecules next to each other. And since these kind of forces are also vital to the existence of the machinery that allows for DNA to be sustained and allows for it's replication, life wouldn't be able to exist in the current model that we know (DNA being the primal "building blocks" for every part of a cell, be it bacteria or Eukaryotic).

And also a high gravity, high electromagnetic forces would pose a serious problem for life as well, as the compaction of molecules due to the massively increase of heat and overall energy surrounding them would mean that any kind of molecule wouldn't be able to exist outside a gas form, ionized metal form or even plasmonic form, so molecules wouldn't be able to interact with one another to create complex molecules as well.

Both are interesting scenarios and interesting fields to study, if we had the know-how and possibility to do so. 

Didn't scientists do experiments where they replicated the conditions of early earth and were able to form basic forms of life?

this is probley the hardest question to answer as there are more then likly be more planets with life (Star Wars has shown us) but it had to start some where and then a god would be a good pridection but then where would they start. I then also with the Big Bang how did that start? so i don't know and could bable on about how the universe is so big that god would have sent out a billion Jesus to talk and show every planet with life about him. it is a question that will be impossibe to answer this life time unless things elvove quickly. and then you may say that once you die there is a after life and that all then you will receve all the answers. but is that possible as when you are dead your body is like a rock it dose nothing

though if  all that is true and religion is not a big scam i will tell you about it when i get there

Yes, the Miller-Urey experiment, were they used a mixture of Water, Methane, Ammonia and Hydrogen, connected to two flasks, one simulating the evaporating atmosphere and another containing a pair of electrodes which were stimulated in constant time intervals with sparks, simulating the constant lightning storms of the early earth. 

After a few weeks, carbon based molecules began to form, some aminoacids like Glycine, Alanine and Lysine; Sugars, non-polar liquid solvents such as acetone, and most important, the appearance of Guanidosine and Adenosine (which are the isolated forms of the nucleic bases, Guanidine and Adenine).