From the wonders of the atheist church’s arguments:
The one-time nature of abiogenesis proves nothing. But finding one more case of abiogenesis refutes belief in God. And they say this in the name of science, whose theses are supposedly meant to stand up to tests of falsification.
And what do they do as long as we haven’t found abiogenesis? Well, obviously we can find it, and there are reports that very soon we will, etc. etc., and therefore obviously there is no God.
And all this even before the explanation in my previous comment that finding cases of abiogenesis is not relevant to the discussion at all.

Here is a transcription of your words in the interview with London and Kirschenbaum (if necessary I can provide a link to the full video clip):

“The creationists argue that the evolutionary process is improbable. Its probability is very low. It’s hard to talk here about probabilities, but let’s talk about plausibility… The improbable happened. It is improbable that it happened, but it happened.

*The fact that an improbable process happened seems to me to be precisely the proper basis for asking the physico-theological question מחדש.*
If it is both improbable and it happened, that is exactly the claim of believers—the claim that says that if an improbable thing happens, apparently someone brought it about.”

Please note the part in asterisks from the quotation.
Well then, if it turns out that there were additional cases of abiogenesis (and even evolutions), would that not negate the basis for asking the theological question anew, as you put it?
Because it could turn out that the improbable suddenly doesn’t look so “improbable” after all.

I want to stress that you are the one who argued that the improbability is the basis for asking the physico-theological question.

With a hoarse throat I’ll repeat again what I wrote: what happened is completely improbable, and even if you find that it happened billions more times, it is still improbable. That is because I am talking about plausibility outside the laws, not within them.
I suggest you read my article (or in more detail, my book God Does Play Dice): https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%98-%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%aa%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%99%d7%97%d7%a1%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%91%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94
I assume that from there you’ll understand better.

I am not an atheist at all. I am a believing person and I also keep the commandments. I want to explain what I mean.

If we know with certainty of only one abiogenesis, then apparently it really is an improbable thing.
But if it turns out that there were many abiogeneses—
many abiogeneses would not refute belief in God, and of course not the question of who created the laws of nature, but they would refute the claim that abiogenesis is an improbable thing.
Because it would prove to us that apparently there is something in the process that does make it possible, something we probably didn’t think of, and therefore we (seemingly) mistakenly thought this was an improbable event.

And from here, if many abiogeneses are discovered, the difficulty is with your approach, which holds that the improbability of abiogenesis is precisely the basis for moving to the physico-theological question (who created the laws of nature).

The physico-theological question is not connected at all to the plausibility of abiogenesis.
It is not the basis for that question, as you argued.
The laws of nature are amazing even with infinitely many abiogeneses.

I didn’t say you were an atheist. After all, I don’t know you. But the argument you are raising is a common atheist argument, and that is what I was referring to.
As for your claim, I’m sending you again to my article. You keep ignoring what I wrote and keep coming back to clarify what needs no clarification and was understood from the very first moment. I won’t answer further unless you raise a substantive claim.

I can’t really read a long article and still think through everything written there within a normal amount of time.

Here is a substantive question:
If they discover very, very many abiogeneses, wouldn’t it be worth changing the approach that this is an improbable event?

By the way, not only you think this is an improbable event—atheists do too, and right now so do I. It seems to me that even Dawkins thinks so. But on the other hand, there are also plenty of atheists who think the opposite—that it is likely that many abiogeneses will be found in the future.

If you do not agree that discovering many cases of living cells (in different and independent places) makes abiogenesis more plausible, I’d be glad to know why that does not make it more plausible.

If it interests you, read the article. I am not in the business of providing summarizing services. I’m done.

I think Michi’s basic argument here is not that abiogenesis is such a rare event, and therefore if it happened that indicates an intelligent designer in the background. What I understand him to mean is that in the absence of an intelligent designer it is hard to explain any abiogenesis at all, whether rare or not. The “wonder” here is not the frequency but the mechanism itself.

Doron, if that is Michi’s argument, then I agree with him 100%.
Even if abiogenesis is not rare at all, that still does not change in the slightest the fact that there is a Creator of everything. The laws…

The issue is the quote I brought from Michi, where he argues that precisely the improbability (of the evolutionary and abiogenetic process) is the basis for discussing the physico-theological claim. That is, if evolution and abiogenesis are indeed plausible things, then there is no point at all in discussing the physico-theological proof—if I am interpreting Michi’s words correctly.

If I did not understand him correctly, you or some other reader is welcome to say where my misunderstanding is.
If there is a place in Michi’s article (which is very long) that could explain my question, you can point me to it.

Here is the quotation:

“The fact that an improbable process happened seems to me to be precisely the proper basis for asking the physico-theological question anew.”

If you want to see the whole discussion, you are welcome to type into YouTube:
“Michael Abraham God Plays Dice,”
and get to the discussion that took place on London and Kirschenbaum on the occasion of the publication of his book (an interview of about 5 minutes).

There is one more thing that is important to emphasize in closing—in contrast to evolution (or lottery drawings), there is not a sufficiently solid basis for a mathematical discussion of turning inert matter into living matter (abiogenesis). We have no experience with this at all, and we have no way of knowing what such a process is really supposed to look like. At the moment everything is speculative. Abiogenesis does not even deserve to be called a theory.
But what is true is that perhaps in the future we will know whether abiogenesis is a rare thing or not, and then we really will be able to infer something about its plausibility, even if we still do not fully know how it works.

Zion,
First of all, I did read Michi’s book God Does / Does Not Play Dice, and I have to say that I agreed with the main points. Since then the author’s views have deteriorated a bit, but that’s another story…
I’m really not sure that I interpreted his answer to you the way he intended, but even from the quote you brought above I can’t understand where you see a difficulty.
The quote, as I understand it, speaks about the improbability involved in assuming the existence of the mechanism insofar as it stands on its own (as atheists maintain, denying the existence of an intelligent designer in the background). Therefore, even if abiogenesis is an everyday, commonplace event like sunrise, the atheist explanation for its occurrence is itself improbable. The frequency question that you are raising is not relevant.
As for your last comment, I don’t really see a better alternative. Science teaches us that inanimate matter became alive, and the role of the interpreter (the philosophical interpreter) is to try to provide the most successful extra-scientific conceptual framework for that scientific theory. That is the maximum.