Responding to a review of your book

And as for the trilogy?

There are some similar references here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%90%D7%94/

And here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%92%D7%95%D7%91%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%99%D 7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%94%D7%99%D7%9 D-%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%97%D7%A7-%D7%91%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AAqu/

and here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7 %95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%95%d7%91%d7%aa-%d7%a6%d7%91%d7%99-%d7%99%d7%a0%d 7%90%d7%99-%d7%9c%d7%a1%d7%93%d7%a8%d7%aa-%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%9e%d7%93/

and here:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%9 0%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%aa%d7%a9%d7%95%d7%91%d7%95%d7%aa-%d7%9c%d7%aa%d7%92%d7%95%d7%91%d7%aa-%d7%a8%d7%95 /

And what about the trilogy?
And thank you very much Oren!

I don't know. I'm nearing the end of the third book in writing, but I haven't decided on the form and method of publication yet. It's still a process.

Thank you Rabbi!

Most of the articles there deal with matters that, even if they were completely correct (and at the time the rabbi had responses to them), would not be exciting in the context of the arguments for the existence of God.

There is one article there that they say is right… his argument is significant. I asked the rabbi about it and his response is here:

https://mikyab.net/שות/ביקורט-על-הטיעון-מן-הפאנגן/

Rabbi,
If you have the address of the old website – I would be happy to, I may be able to restore it.

I quickly went through all the response articles in Etologika again.
With the exception of one article, none of the criticisms made there make sense.
In general, even if the criticism is completely correct, at most the rabbi did not understand a certain line in Dawkins or did not choose a very good parable. A response was indeed written to all the essential things.

Individual responses:

Article A – Meaningless rambling about terminology in the philosophy of science. It seems that the critic is not a philosopher, so it is not clear why his words should be trusted. In any case, there is a response from the rabbi in the comments on the website where the criticism was published

Article B – Meaningless rambling about whether evolution can be refuted or not. Even if not – then no. So what? Beyond that, there is a response from the rabbi himself on the critic's website in the comments.

Article C – There is a response from the rabbi on the argument in Notebooks 3, Chapter 9.

Article D – A response to the question in the link I included below. What is more, this is the only intelligent argument in all the articles, but he also copied it from someone else's article on the physico-theological argument. This argument also suffers from some not-so-simple flaws.

Article E – claims that the Rabbi's analogy of the work is incorrect and that one should not be amazed at the uniqueness of the universe. Chapter 9 of Notebook 3 answers this as well, as does the article in response to Elia Leibowitz’.

Article F – A rant about Dawkins' opinion in his book – The critic claims that Dawkins thinks that evolution is not accidental but proceeds according to laws, and Rabbi Michi thinks that according to Dawkins, evolution is accidental. I emphasize, I did not go into detail about whether this claim is correct, but even if it is correct… It is not clear what significance this has beyond whether the rabbi understood or not what Dawkins meant. In any case, he showed that both theses lead to belief in God.

Article 7 – The stupidest response article in the series…. It is not clear what the purpose of the article is. The rabbi brings a parable about how everyone marvels at an improbable event and brings an example from life (a dice). The critic shows that in his opinion there is a clear chance that the events brought up in the parable will indeed happen and therefore the parable is irrelevant. Even if he is right… (I did not see the need to delve into this either) it seems to me that he did not understand what the purpose of the parable is…