Well I would never use our mere existence as "proof" of God's existence because I know that is affirming the consequent which of course is a violation of formal logic. So you shouldn't use life's existence as proof of abiogenesis either.
I think we define natural laws differently. I look at natural laws as the manner in which God upholds His creation in a uniform and predictable manner. Science actually has trouble defining natural laws and explaining how they are manifested. Science also has trouble deciding whether natural laws existed prior to space and time and helped to give rise to space and time or if they are a result of space and time's interaction.
Abiogenesis is a form of origins science, so scientists can never demonstrate how life began, they can formulate ideas, but even if they could create life in the lab this in no way means that it is the way life began on earth (affirming the consequent again).
You know, you have mentioned the "god of the gaps" argument several times now. I agree with you, one form of the God of the gaps argument should not be used. This is to explain the gaps that get smaller as we learn more (your lightning example, even though I don’t think Christians ever thought God was "throwing" lightning bolts). The God of the gaps argument that is completely valid is the one that deals with the gaps that get bigger the more we learn. You yourself used an argument in this form in the "13 Questions" thread when you said you knew the "I Love You" written in the sand was man-made. You know this because you know that natural processes cannot create the information encoded in this message, only a mind could. Well many people use this same argument to infer God's role and existence in the creation of the information within life. So you used a valid form of the argument, but it was the same "gaps" argument many Creationists use.
