To me the root of theistic audacity, they take this as a given and not something to be proved.

“just as the fact that this planet we live on is beautiful and abounds with an astoundingly rich diversity of life makes theism more probable than it would be if the surface of the Earth resembled the surface of the Moon.“

I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that he accepts the possibility of a multiverse.

However, I still don’t see how this is not in conflict with the way he is using the KCA.

There is the beginning of our Universe (which is what he seems to be focusing on here), which can be possibly explained by the collision of two Universes or the fissioning of one Universe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYAdwS5MFjQ

Then there’s the infinite arena where all the Universes are sprung from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhIsxAc3C30 (min 2:20).

Dr. Marshall has clearly said now that he agrees a multiverse is possible and may lie behind our Big Bang.

When Dr. Marshal states in his first premise of the KCA that the Universe began to exist, is he referring to our Universe? Has he ruled out the possibility of there being a Multiverse? Some cosmologists, such as Michio Kaku, believe that our Universe could be one of many, residing in an infinite arena or hyperspace, in which Universes are constantly being generated. On this view, the arena has always existed whereas the Universes have a beginning and an end. A rough analogy would that of a bathtub (arena) wherein bubbles (Universes) are constantly being created.

I understand that this hasn’t been proven yet, but some cosmologists (string theorists) believe that there is evidence in support of this model.

Would like to hear if Dr. Marshal’s has ruled out this model and on what grounds.

I didn’t really expect a response. I figured what I said was benign enough. It’s not an argument against a deity. Just that using diversity as evidence of a deity is categorically going against the facts of biology as we know them. I would imagine nobody is interested in a debate about evolution (and I’m not interested in having one) but I’m a bit shocked that I’m having to conclude that you reject evolution as the explanation for diversity of life on our planet.

Dr. Marshall, sorry but I just now went back and noticed your reply. I see your point, but relevancy is distinct from illegally obtained evidence. Evidence is excluded if it is not relevant. However, illegally obtained evidence might be relevant, but still excluded because of the manner in which it was obtained.

All this is probably not relevant to your case, but just to clarify I thought I would throw it in.

It’s a rebuttal to an argument for a intentionally/consciously designed universe. The universe could be the result of a dream of an eternal mind (aka subconscious). I just think it’s unlikely an eternal mind would stop at one universe. If that’s the case why would this one be special to such a mind?

When I read your statement that the beauty and bountifulness of the Earth makes theism more probable than an existence where the Earth resembled the surface of the moon, I wondered if the existence of the moon makes theism less probable. If we pile on the rest of the planets and moons in our solar system that are just as hostile to human life, can we take this as further evidence against theism?

Why should we accept the existence of habitable space as evidence for theism without accepting the existence of inhabitable space as evidence against theism, and if we consider both states, should we not also consider the ratio of habitable to inhabitable space?

Myshkyn,

Usually, evidence is considered “relevant” if it has some bearing on the probability of a particular hypothesis (say, that Tom is guilty of said crime).

I’m no lawyer, much less a legal scholar, but my understanding is that in court cases you can have facts that are relevant in the sense above mentioned but irrelevant because they are legally inadmissible in the case in question.

A common example would be evidence that has been illegally obtained. That evidence obviously might have relevance to the personal opinion of the judge as to whether Tom is guilty, but it has no relevance to the case insofar as it is inadmissible, and the judge will accordingly direct the jury to disregard it.