Fixing an embarrassing error in the third notebook

Hello Dr. Abraham!
How sad and worried I was that a genius like you failed in an argument that even the (usually poor) Freedom website managed to refute Kafra Daraa.
This is your argument in the notebook:
"So, the only way to calculate the probability that God is responsible for the complexity in the universe is in the following indirect way: the probability that God exists is exactly 1 minus the probability of spontaneous generation (for which we have at least an intuition)."
And this is how the Freedom website refuted it:
"Barbarian statistics"
One of the most lame arguments I've heard recently, from those trying to prove the existence of a creator for the world, goes like this: Either life began by chance, or it was created by a purposeful force. In addition, if the probability of something is P, then the probability of its opposite (contradictory, logically complementary, whatever you like) event is 1 minus P. Now, scientists have calculated that the probability of life arising by chance is so-and-so, a very low number (let's say 0.0001 for the sake of argument, in fact it's much less). Now, if this is the probability of life arising by chance, then the chance of its arising by purpose, the complementary event, is 1 minus 0.0001, that is, 0.9999. From this we learn that the chance that life arose by a purposeful force is very large, almost certain, and of course that means that there is a God, with almost complete certainty.
Amazing, isn't it? Suddenly scientists are telling us how likely God is… Any scientist who discovers some new chemical reaction can affect the chances that God exists! But beyond the initial ridicule, the abysmal stupidity of this argument is revealed in full glory. I won't bother you with statistical nonsense (apart from the simple fact that a sample of a single case is completely meaningless). Instead, I'll ask you to read the following example carefully.
When you throw a die, there are two possibilities. Either it lands on a certain side by chance, or aliens from a planet beyond our grasp influence the side it lands on using telekinetic methods that are beyond our comprehension. So far, no problem, right? Great. Let me take a die. I'm going to throw this die 10 times. Pay close attention, I don't have any die up my sleeve, the procedure is completely scientific. And here are the results: 3,3,5,2,1,5,6,4,2,3.
Now let's take the calculator and calculate the probability that this sequence of dice rolls came out by chance. It is known that the chance of the dice landing on any side by chance is one in six. There are ten rolls here, and a simple calculation will reveal that the chance that this sequence of ten rolls came out by chance is one in six to the tenth power. That is, one in sixty million, four hundred sixty-six thousand, one hundred seventy-six. In decimal representation, this is approximately something like 0.000000016 – a small chance by all accounts. The chance of the complementary event (alien control) is therefore one less than this number, that is, 0.999999984. Almost absolute certainty.
And now, using very basic statistics and a simple cube, I have proven to the entire world that cubes are controlled by aliens from the planet Telgaz!
This flawed conclusion stems from exactly the same logic that supposedly proves the existence of God in the original argument. Where is the trick? It's even simpler than you think. Statistics of this kind have meaning only when we have no information about the existence or non-existence of the event in question in reality. Before the event, there is only probability; after the event, there is only certainty. This can be demonstrated in a fairly everyday way. The question "Did you get a report yesterday" has two possible answers: yes and no. This is because the event has already happened. There is no meaning in talking about chances. On the other hand, the question "Will you get a report tomorrow" can certainly be given an answer related to chances, and on the other hand, an answer of "yes" or "no" can seem a little strange (unless the person does not drive…). Again, this is because the event has not yet happened. Both the origin of life argument and the aliens and the cube argument make an improper use of statistics – treating an event as if it had not yet happened, when in fact it did and we even know its results. Statistics of this kind can only go forward, not backward.
Congratulations! Another poor argument has been thrown into the intellectual garbage heap. The more certain religious people try to prove the existence of God with logical, mathematical, or scientific arguments, the more their abysmal ignorance in these areas becomes apparent. And as the wise have said: It is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.
(Note to the wiseguys, who will say that the cube argument has other possibilities besides coincidence and aliens: this is also the case with the original argument! For example, that life has always existed; or that there is no such thing at all and everything is an illusion; or that there are several creators and not just one, and so on)"
It would be advisable to correct such an error…