None of your business.
But I understand yours: science.
It is my business if you're arguing for a creator, we need to compare your theories with the explanations of your religion. Further, I don't take people seriously who claim to follow a biblical God but don't adhere to his commandments/suggestions for his followers. Like cherry picking a religion for example. If you indulge in that, you're disagreeing with your God, while simultaneously claiming to obey him.
1." It is my business if you're arguing for a creator,"
Nonsense.
I use logic, education and experience.
2. For purposes of clarity, there are two kinds of science.
a. Real science, which uses the Scientific Method, with which it tests hypotheses
and
b. the religion called science....which allows itself the very same methods that it disparages in theology.
3. The latter, the religion you call science, envies the place religion has in most people's lives....and does everything it can to battle religion.
This is surely a character flaw, as religion does no such thing toward science...real science.
I call as my witness....Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology.
He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Did you get that???
"....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
Science???
So you're just a philosophical person? I don't subscribe to the multiverse theory or any theory for that matter. It's not possible to answer the 'why' question at this point. Your faith does matter here, because the creation theory in Abrahamic faiths differs from other theories you're presenting.
The question is, when can we say an theory is plausible enough? Or we should just base that off faith? That's not enough for me. Since I see religion used as a tool for the masses, both in the east and west. For some it's an industry. I pursue the truth, however don't like promoting religious narratives which mostly are pushed to achieve political objectives.
I'm an educated person.
I've just provided....to you....the CliffNotes version of the religion of science...."....unsubstantiated just-so stories..."
Now...that is the real industry.
How is this supposed to convince me about an existence of a God? If you're arguing solely for an existence of a God but not stating the purpose of life, then is this a powerless God or some entity that created us for nothing?
I'm assuming you're Jewish, since you keep quoting scripture. From my perspective, Jews need American christians to remain religious as a means to ensure support for Israel. And if those Christians eventually went against that doctrine, you'd downplay religion and promote atheism.
Where did you get the notion that I mean to convince you "about an existence of a God?"
I've made the case that fake science...that which you believe, is a religion.