I honestly don't understand how this issue is even arguable - I mean given that: a) We haven't seen any evidence of life outside this planet b) We haven't been

I honestly don't understand how this issue is even arguable - I mean given that: a) We haven't seen any evidence of life outside this planet b) We haven't been able to reproduce life from scratch in a lab so we don't know the odds needed for it to occur, then Isn't it obvious that: c) We have absolutely no evidence whatsoever on which to base any range of probability regarding the existence of life outside this planet ? I'm not saying I think there isn't life outside this planet nor that I think there is - what I'm saying is that so long as points a) and b) stand, any statement on the matter is just wishful thinking, personal faith etc. It has nothing to do with scientific thinking. If you think it isn't obvious, I'm interested (seriously) to understand where the flaw in my logic is.