Why Do Theists Reject Being Questioned?

Again, though, it's not that Earth is a great fit for us. It's that we are a great fit for Earth, because this is where we evolved.

Right now there could be a creature walking around in the methane clouds of Titan saying "You know, it's so amazing that we happen to be out here in the outer system, nice and far from the sun, and have this methane atmosphere and this really low gravity that is just perfect for us. Imagine if we lived in a temperature that was so high that water itself could actually be LIQUID! Or had a gravity five or six times our own, like some of those inner ones do! Or even an atmosphere filled with a high percentage of that terrible poison, Oxygen! Surely this proves that a divine force put Titan exactly here just for us."

It's also worth noting that our universe is in fact immensely UNFIT for life of our own kind.

Drop a human being into the universe in a random location. There's a near 100% chance that he will be in deep space and will therefore immediately die.

Rule out deep space. Drop a human being into a random planet. Mostly they're solid rock or gas which will kill your person instantly.

Okay, so drop him onto the surface of a planet. For 99.99% of planets, same result - instant death if you end up on the surface of Mercury, Mars, Venus, etc.

Even put him somewhere randomly on the surface of Earth, and the chances are that he won't last long unless he has tools and specialised knowledge.

The percentage of the universe which is comfortably habitable for a human being is so close to zero that to look at the universe and say "this was made specially for us" is an absurdity.

In fact, it is nothing but the worst kind of egomania. It's like a bacterium clinging to your head and claiming that Human civilisation only exists so that it has clean hair to live on.

You brought up science and your need for actual evidence (empirical), and suggested that you need evidence that "intelligence can exist prior to the universe", So what hypothesis would you like to use? You demand proof but you don't know what proof would be in order to satisfy your request. You seemed confused by your own request. 

You've based your requirement of proof of God's existence on science correct?

No, it's dealing with an argument that DOES exist. Just because you may not use that argument, this doesn't mean that others don't.

You need to read my statement again. Nothing has been found. That's all I'm saying. If there is life on other planets, then so be it.

However, let's not pretend that any of those planets come even close to being like Earth just because they fit a broad parameter. The reality is that even if there is a New York City on Gliese, we will never know.

In short, there is nothing wrong with being happy for being on such a great planet.

You're kidding right?  

Give me the evidence! But I don't know what the evidence is, yet I am the sole arbiter of what evidence will suffice. It's like a court asking for proof of murder but there is no standard by which to prove it. Despite all the of evidence (anecdotal) for the existence of God, which is the most written about subject in humankind, not to mention the personal spiritual experiences of billions of people past and present and near death experiences, you demand empirical evidence that you yourself say you have no idea what it would be! 

You seem to rely on science but you don't understand what science is supposed to do for you. You create a standard like "show me that intelligence existed before the creation of the universe" but you have no idea what that would look like. It's a silly device that you use to create a standard which you don't even understand, let alone, would understand or accept.

Forgetting the fact that you are doing a bait and switch here. You surely agree that science's (people) ability to understand is always changing right? And that what science couldn't prove before, like say the nature of pneumonia and how to cure it, ultimately was able to prove it later correct? Gravity, the solar system, shape of the Earth... these were all phenomenon that science could not explain but ultimately did. Not to mention where science has gotten it wrong like in the case of stomach ulcers....the point being is that science is fallible.

If you are being sincere, your point, whether you realize it, is that you don't believe in God because science hasn't proven it to your satisfaction yet..... You're not an atheist, I'm not even sure you're an agnostic because by relying on science (it's evolution and fallibility) you are accepting that there is a possibility/probability, however small, that God does exist. In essence, you don't believe in God yet. 

You either didn't read my last post or you're ignoring it. Either way, you're in over your head.