> Obviously the second one has more chance of being true the one where there is only one. That is not at all obvious to me. You are essentially taking the odd

> Obviously the second one has more chance of being true the one where there is only one. That is not at all obvious to me. You are essentially taking the odds of the odds of something. A statistician can correct me, but I don't think it works the same way as calculating the odds of something. Like, it's not as if we have a roulette wheel where "1/10^24" is an option, "2/10^24" is an option, "3/10^24" is an option, etc. In that case, "many" outweighs "1," certainly. But if the odds of abiogenesis are so unlikely that we happen to be the only life in the universe, it doesn't seem like those odds must necessarily be wrong simply because it's logically possible for them to be more or less likely than they are. But even then, it's kind of a wash. For as much as it could be logically possible for the odds to be more likely than they are (which would allow abiogenesis to occur more frequently), it would also be logically possible for the odds to be less likely than they are.