Why do you need to explain why we happen to be in this universe as opposed to another?
Because the whole problem is to explain the astonishingly improbable. If you say “I’m not going to explain it,” you might as well just say everything poofed into existence by accident. In other words, the claim of materialists is that we can explain life as we see it, not as something that’s exceedingly improbable but as something that’s expected. The multiverse doesn’t do that once you show that Darwinism doesn’t work. It’s highly unexpected for there to be all this life around us. That’s my point.
Another argument against the multiverse is that positing the existence of myriads of parallel universes doesn’t seem more plausible than positing the existence of God.
I totally agree with you. I think it’s a stretch in the best of situations.
Last question: You argue that scientists would actually conduct better science if they believed in God. How so?
For example, you may remember when a human genome sequences was published many years back, it was thought that most of our DNA is junk – that it’s not doing anything and it’s just left over from this very inefficient evolutionary process. That idea caused scientists to write off 97 percent or so of our genome as not worth studying.
But that idea has turned out to be false. We now know that the vast majority of our DNA is functional in some way. So that’s an example of how the wrong philosophy can lead us down the wrong road for decades.
