h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Life may be entirely pointless, but you are not exactly offering any proof of that. This appears to be a combination of opinion and conjecture based upon opinion; so I'm presuming this is not intended for the Edited Guide.

Three of things that occurred to me as I read it. If the universe is going to play tiddlywinks, it is doing so with stars and planets.

Saying that we were, or were not, created by a god or gods is entirely unproven. Give us a premise - pro or con - and it can be part of the discussion; but simply proclaiming either is so does not prove either. Actually, I'm not sure why a god would create a universe, much less us; but science and logic have proven to me that there was one involved at the beginning, whether it was intentional or planned or not; and I have no opinion whether the god involved has given us a thought since.

[For 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything. The only problem is no-one actually knows what the Question is, so Deep Thought devised Earth to work out what the Question really is. That won't work though, no-one will like what the question REALLY is.]

This used to be true, but I worked out the ultimate question back in the 1980s. It's the only one that fits the parameters outlined in the book. But you are correct that no one really likes the question. I found it satisfying, but even I don't LIKE it.

It appears that the author has left the H shaped building, but here is a more thorough critique of the piece for the potential use by any who might care to take this forward.
*********************
[Life itself is an entirely pointless chemical reaction that can cause a large amount of suffering for anyone else unfortunate enough be alive.]
Certainly there are chemical reactions involved, but this could provide a point in itself. Some believe that we are here to 'cause a large amount of suffering for anyone...

[Life itself has no potential viable purpose and is a waste of time the universe could better spend pottering about playing tiddlywinks or something.]
Life can be redundant or futile; but, if it is a waste of time, the universe has nothing better to do and the only things that note the passage of time is life. Life at least provides a context for the rest of the universe.

[Some people may say that we were created by a god but that is total codswallop, there is no particularily good reason for life and it was just a chance mistake that shouldn't of happened.]
Opinions on the existence or non-existence of god has been covered, and life may not have proven that it can provide a good reason for living. It may even be a chance mistake, but the suggestion that it 'shouldn't have happened' implies a value system of 'right and wrong' which does not exist without a god. No god, no should or shouldn't.

[Others may say that life can be represented by the number 42, the theory divised by hyper computer Deep Thought, and they would be more correct. For 42 is the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything.]
This is an additional opinion or assumption. Never mind that the actual DT has never (or, at least, has not yet) existed; this is a presumption that it has, will, had, would come up with 42 and that it would not be wrong.

[The only problem is no-one actually knows what the Question is, so Deep Thought devised Earth to work out what the Question really is.]
Another assumption, and totally wrong. There is only one question that completely works, and it has been created.

[That won't work though, no-one will like what the question REALLY is.]
Perhaps a bit of an exageration, but the most factual, accurate statement in the piece. It would be even more accurate if written:
That won't work, though; very few would like what the question REALLY has to be.