Statistical impossibility??

I would think simple common sense would dictate that even the most pessimistic estimation as to the smallest percentage of stars that likely have planets orbiting them in our known universe would make it a much more statistical probability that life exists elsewhere in our universe.Taking into account just the number of stars that are within the size of ours plus or minus 25 percent and the age of ours plus or minus 25 percent would still be a huge number. If one was to accept Bode’s law as plausible expectation in some large percentage of this prior subset we then get a smaller (but still very large number) of stars at this very moment in time that likely have habitable planets orbiting them.Recent findings as to the worst possible conditions on this planet that could exist and still contain some form of life would do nothing but increase the number of habitable planets from the subset above so I would say that it is much more realistic to assume that it would be a statistical impossibility for their NOT to be life elsewhere in our known universe.The concept of any form of valid contrary argument escapes my abilities. I cannot conceive of any intelligent reasoning person on this planet with a rudimentary grasp of the number of stars in our known universe being able to stand there and say that we are probably the only planet in the entire known universe with a habitable planet. But I am biased, I guess since I already know the answer.

Instinctively I think that you both might agree to some extent with my instincts.Until someone can prove that there is not a largest slice of time or a smallest slice of time or a largest slice of distance or a smallest slice of distance it would seem logical to deduce that is better than a 50% chance that both continue outwards and inwards for an infinite number of iterations.But lets for a second ignore all the space outside our known universe and all the space inside what we call elementary particles and only concentrate on this infinitesimal little pocket of space time that we call our known universe and that which we can see within it.My question is do either of you have a good estimate as to the number of known stars that are similar in size to our sun plus or minus 20% and similar in age to ours plus or minus 20%.And secondly if Bode’s law is a derivative of the gravitational attraction that could make a pool of elementary particles merge together at certain distances from each other and thus form planets then would it not be an almost statistical impossibility for there not to be other planets in our known universe that are similar in size to ours at a similar distance from their sun as ours is.

Small clarification. I did not mean to imply that our observation of ONE solar system is sufficient enough to give any further merit to Bode's law as a valid reason for calculating an estimated number of planets within a specfic distance of their relative central star. Just that there is no conclusive evidence to support an interaction of the laws of physics near other similarly sized and simiarlty dense stars where Bode's law would not hold true.

Thank You. Anybody else with any form of useful facts would be welcomed.