This video uses some overzealous paraphrasing to the point of being really misleading. For example, look at the quote they put in the video @2:13. If you actually read the article, you’ll find that it actually says (I’ll put in bold only the parts they showed in the video): “However, in the interest of science and sound skepticism, I believe it is time to take the new findings and insights into account, to dampen excessive SETI euphoria and to adopt a more pragmatic and down-to-earth stand, compatible with facts. We should quietly admit that the early estimates - that there may be a million, a hundred thousand, or ten thousand advanced extraterrestrial civilizations in our galaxy - may no longer be tenable.” See how Prager cherry picked this narrative? Why would they do that? Because there’s at least 100 billion galaxies, so even if there was only one planet with intelligent life per galaxy, that’s still 100 billion planets with intelligent life that are totally beyond communication, which greatly weakens Prager’s narrative. What’s worse is that the article was written in 2006, years before Kepler discovered all those extrasolar planets, bringing the galactic estimate to at least 100 billion planets in our galaxy alone, all of which are currently beyond our ability to communicate with even if there is intelligent life on any of them. I wonder how many other quotes in this video are misleading. I've already wasted enough time with the one quote and I don't want to waste time on the others, but if you'd like to reply to this comment with your findings, please do so.

Despite all this, time is the most important variable and it’s completely ignored in this video. A planet can have life on it for billions of years, and intelligent life for millions of years, and still not have the ability to communicate with distant planets. In fact, that’s exactly Earth’s situation. So, to say that because our immensely limited species, “hasn’t found intelligent life in the universe yet” after only a few decades of primitive research, and use that as any sort of argument about the nature of the universe, is to exemplify a gross misunderstanding of the subject matter.

Finally, having never observed other universes, we can currently only state that the odds of our universe coming into existence are 1:1. Anything else requires appealing to the unknown as if it’s known. Furthermore, if God had to greatly fine-tune, then it means He was bound by rules that forced Him to do so. The greater the odds, the more restricted the god. The more restricted the god, the more impotent the god. So, omnipotence is sacrificed to make this argument, which is untenable for the Abrahamic god. Let us not forget that this also leads to the question of who created the rules that dictated the requirements for God’s fine-tuning? Example: you fine-tune a car, because physics prevents you from getting the car to do what you want it to do unless you take those physics into consideration and base your fine-tuning around them. So, what was preventing “God” from getting the universe to do what He wanted, thereby forcing Him to take such considerations that resulted in the need for this supposed extreme fine-tuning? The fine-tuning argument actually kills the classical monotheistc god, yet Prager still uses it.