I didn’t claim that other universes exist. My claim at the end is that in systems of laws that reach a size like our universe, it is plausible that complex products would arise.
At present we know of a few thousand planets. The fact that we haven’t found complex products on them says nothing about all the other 10 to the 25th power ones.

I didn’t understand (or you didn’t understand). If out of thousands of known planets we haven’t found any complex creature, that means the probability of complex creatures is very small even under our own laws of nature. Indeed, such creatures may exist on other planets—but so what? Our laws of nature allow life and complexity, and therefore their legislator must be God. A different system of laws chosen at random would not produce anything complex, even in infinitely many attempts.

That is a logical leap. How does the Rabbi infer from the fact that in our universe the chance of complexity arising is very small that in other systems of laws it is not possible?

Not at all. I do not infer that from our universe. For life to arise by chance, you need laws of nature that allow chemistry and biology. And even when those exist, you still need a successful accident for life to emerge. In other systems of laws, this is not possible at all, so there too it would not arise even by chance. The uniqueness of our universe is not that life arose in it, but that its laws of nature allow such a formation. Other systems do not allow this.
If you randomly draw a system of natural laws, there is almost no chance you will get a system that allows life.

Now we’re back to my original question—granted, other systems do not allow life, but maybe they allow other complex products (that do not require biology and chemistry)? After all, even in our universe there are complex products that are not alive—snowflakes, for example.

I already answered that above. And besides, they don’t. The creation of complex creatures means that the system is special and therefore rare.

And if you go back to other systems of laws, then you are talking about other universes. We’re going in circles.

I didn’t understand. I couldn’t find where the Rabbi answered this beyond the sentence, “Not every system of laws produces complex creatures. That is a baseless myth, and it is not true,” and I couldn’t find a justification for that claim.
True, I did find a justification for why not every system of laws produces *life* (you need biology and chemistry), but not a justification for why other complex products would not arise.
Also, the fact that on other planets known to us no complex creatures have arisen is not a justification: it proves that the probability of complexity arising is not high, but it does not prove that it is impossible.

I’ll answer one last time (unless something new comes up).
Throughout our entire universe there is the same system of laws. When you talk about other systems of laws, that means other universes. As for other universes, I answered that above.
In our universe there is a very particular system of laws that allows chemistry and biology, and therefore life. Systems that were even slightly different would not allow this (fine-tuning), and then it wouldn’t matter how many planets there were here—life would not arise. Other complex creatures would not arise either, because a system that produces complex creatures is itself one with special properties, and is therefore rare. So the chance of such a system existing without a guiding hand is very small.
The claim that every system of laws produces complex creatures is very common among atheists. It is nonsense, both because there is no inherent logic to it (the simulations they show are always very particular systems of laws, and the complex creatures arise only for a very short time). Beyond that, in our own system of laws—which does allow life and complexity—other complex creatures do not arise on other planets. According to their view, on every planet something should have arisen after enough time. So the claim that every system produces complex creatures is incorrect.
Of course, there is no certainty about anything. We are dealing with plausibility and probability.

Now I understand, thank you. According to this, could one use snowflakes for the physicotheological argument? (Because a system that comes into being without a guiding hand would not likely create snowflakes.)

Yes, but their complexity cannot be compared to that of a living creature. And a snowflake also does not survive over time. A temporary and fleeting product is not as impressive as a stable product that is transmitted by heredity to future generations and does not dissipate.