We are not supposed to get into religious discussions here, so I will try to tread carefully in responding to the idea that "special creation ", as an alternative to abiogenesis, has any effect on the probability of life occurring elsewhere. Special creation could occur in other places if it occurred here, and maybe with even more likelihood.
My point is that not believing in abiogenesis, or even somehow having proof that abiogenesis is impossible, still does not result in a logical basis for claiming that life cannot exist somewhere else, too.
The idea that there is not absolute proof that abiogenesis occurs is just as ineffective as claiming that there is no proof that special creation occurred. What we have proof of is that something did occur here, and we have no data or logical basis for arguing that whatever that was could not occur elsewhere, too.
So far, we have no proof that live did or did not ever occur anywhere else, all we have is proof that whatever put life here on Earth can happen.
My point is that not believing in abiogenesis, or even somehow having proof that abiogenesis is impossible, still does not result in a logical basis for claiming that life cannot exist somewhere else, too.
The idea that there is not absolute proof that abiogenesis occurs is just as ineffective as claiming that there is no proof that special creation occurred. What we have proof of is that something did occur here, and we have no data or logical basis for arguing that whatever that was could not occur elsewhere, too.
So far, we have no proof that live did or did not ever occur anywhere else, all we have is proof that whatever put life here on Earth can happen.