Lord, give me strength!
The question is not terribly staggering -but the answers show why I'm beginning to think the patients are running the asylum.
Infinite universe? I doubt it. Inasmuch as the big U is a defined area -even if it is expanding and dynamic- there is, at any given time, a finite number of particles "out there," so the U's status as "infinite" is not subject to "belief." Besides which, this is a tautological argument, such that if true than of course there is an infinite number of possibilities. Call security.
Your question, which I see apparently comes from the somewhat murky depths of the BBC, does NOT ask if we are surpised that an earth-like planet exists -but rather, it asks if we are surpised that it has "just been discovered ..."
And so, of course, most respondents answer the question that was not asked -the "existence" one, I mean.
One respondent did pick up this nuance, noting surprise that the discovery was made so soon, but claiming to be underwhelmed that we have a distant neighbor that seems to be like us: send the champagne to that person.
And I would side with that person; I'm surprised in somewhat the same way I feel delighted when a mail order arrives a day or two ahead of expected delivery; I've been waiting for it, assume it will get here, but am happily surprised when it is sooner than I expected.
But, then again, the question concludes with more queries about being surprised by "...all this." The premises of the questions are a bit frail, however. I'm not sure why the mere existence of water raises the chances of life. All we know is that life and water seem to go together here on earth. And this touches on the whole notion of what life -as we undertand it thus far, and as we understand it HERE- needs to exist. Perhaps there are life forms which enjoy silica. I don't know. Since no one has YET, far as I know, discovered exactly what it was that took earthly chemicals and made them self-replicating, adaptative, and evolving, it is difficult to guess what boundary events or circumstances would produce a repeat performance elsewhere.
And so, resolving that and related issues await more data -just as HERE.
Now let's see if we have some help for the Almighty. If you don't think there is one, then there's no discussion. But if you think there is, then I see no reason why the Creator would not employ whatever means "He" thought might serve best. This poses no threat to theological thought, or worse, fundmantalist thought, that I can detect.
What has been left out of the question is any reference to the "Drake Equation," which is an attempt to calculate the chances of life "out there." Since we now have an actual "earth-like" planet (which is N sub e in the equation) how would the formula be modified -or would it, at all? Being as how the formula was spawned by another centre of British thought (the journal, "Nature") the BBC should be all over it by now. Good broadcast journalism, that.
I suppose there may now be some rush to detect "intelligent" (ie., not earth-like) like on G581.1 but if there is, I hope we have the good sense to leave those poor folks alone. By now, or soon, they shall be suffering old radio quiz shows and reruns of "I Love Lucy," God forbid.
Cheerio!
I shall look forward to the result of BBC's investigation.