Yesterday, 11:07 AM
It surely sounded like you were arguing that based on current understanding, life is impossible based upon some kind of probability calculation. Of course, as you pointed out, "one must understand the entire situation". And that's the big problem with probabilistic arguments about the origin of life -- no one knows the entire situation. I can easily (with the help of Excel) calculate the probabilities for my bridge example because there are only a fixed number of possible outcomes for a bridge hand. But no one knows all of the possibilities for the creation of life, so it seems unconvincing to me to try to use some sort of probability calculation to demonstrate that life is "impossible".
Of course, I may have assumed you were using improbability as evidence of the existence of God. In this I may have been in error, given the last part of your post in which you said, "revelation is a very rational and reasonable reason to believe in God." But there are two insurmountable problems with revelation: first, the person receiving the revelation can never be sure that the experience is a true revelation from God or merely a delusion. Of course if the revelations continue and are consistent then one could very well be convinced beyond doubt that they aren't delusions, just as we (or most of us) don't think that we're brains in vats.
Second, revelation is personal and can never constitute demonstrable evidence of the existence of God. It is unrepeatable. Accordingly, it is of little use to convince someone to seek God and obtain rewards.