Thank you very much, I would really be happy to buy the book.
And I wanted to ask another question: I am currently reading God Plays Dice.

And there are 2 things I don’t understand—how they fit with an atheist approach.
First, is there any explanation at all for how the Big Bang itself came into being, meaning where the components that created it came from?
Second, in the book you cite Dawkins, who says that he is standing on the sidelines waiting to see how biologists will manage to create life from inanimate matter.
You refute him by saying that he himself is bringing the physico-theological proof without noticing it.
But I don’t understand this at all. After all, today we do not know of any such possibility whatsoever—maybe such a possibility will exist later. So as long as it is not an actual possibility, we have no logical reason to go with evolution, because it has no way to exist.
It is like a criminal receiving some sentence in court and telling the judge that because maybe later he will bring evidence, he cannot be punished…..

I would be happy to know whether the atheist view has answers to these questions.

Best regards

Hello,
1. As far as I know—no. There are, of course, various attempts to talk about previous and parallel universes. But that still leads into an infinite regress.
2. There are already attempts that have had some degree of success, and there is an assessment that in the end they will succeed completely. Search online for abiogenesis.
The basic claim is that science advances, and it is not correct to bring proofs from a gap in science. The situation is not similar to a criminal who was convicted and claims he will bring evidence, because here the claim is that there is no conviction. The fact that the formation of life is not yet known does not mean that life cannot form. In contrast, with the criminal there is evidence against him and he wants to postpone it by claiming that in the future he will bring other evidence. That is not serious.
Think about a criminal convicted of murder because only he, out of all the residents of the country, can climb through the window of the house where the murder took place (the climb is very difficult). He claims that there are other people who can do it, and promises that he will look for one and bring him when he finds him. Would you convict him? Certainly not. He is claiming that the evidence against him is not evidence—not that he has counter-evidence. Consider this carefully.
This is what in these discussions is called a “god of the gaps” argument.

The argument about climbing through the window is correct only because there really is some kind of progress in that area.
Otherwise, if there is no possibility known to us at all—at least no logical possibility—then in my opinion he really should be convicted.

What progress? No progress at all. He is claiming that there are other such people, and we do not know of them. On the contrary, specifically in the field of abiogenesis there has been progress, as I noted.