I think that’s attacking the conclusion, not the assumptions. Have you put numbers on what you consider “mind-bogglingly unlikely” and done the math on that, gi

I think that’s attacking the conclusion, not the assumptions. Have you put numbers on what you consider “mind-bogglingly unlikely” and done the math on that, given the distances involved? The authors supposedly have, and I’m no expert, but I don’t find the argument completely ridiculous. The universe isn’t that old compared to its size; I think it’s plausible for two unlikely events to have happened without their causal cones having intersected yet.