Why are """"intellectuals"""" so ready to accept hypotheses like a multiverse and ayylmaos existing a truth even though...

Why are """"intellectuals"""" so ready to accept hypotheses like a multiverse and ayylmaos existing a truth even though there's literally no evidence for it, but revolt at the idea that perhaps there's a higher more intelligent power in the universe?

The multiverse is backed up by math, charting the uneven expansion of this universe, the processes that lead to the creation of this universe being potentially non-unique, etc. And even then it is by no means uncontroversial, people continue to look for evidence. Life on other planets is supported by the seeming universality of the principles of physics and organic/chemistry, where self-replicating molecules are the product of certain processes in certain conditions. And, again, these are not assumed a priori, but rather scientists search for evidence of extra-terrestrial life based on those principles.
Both are very different to simply assuming a higher power exists and refusing to listen to evidence that may weaken the proposition.

>ayylmaos existing
>a higher more intelligent power in the universe
Aren't these generally considered the same?

>why do smart people entertain reasonable hypotheses but ignore ancient superstitions

They don't though, they just chafe under the yolk of god as defined by man. Assuming there is a primary mover of some kind, it is an indefinable being. One that is metaphysical and exists outside of nature by definition. Dawkins and the other Jew to his right only attack man-made constructs. They don't attack the notion of there being something that caused the big bang. This is simply because it doesn't matter. I hate to mention Hawking (because he's a meme) but his point about what happened before time is irrelevant is a good deduction. Nothing that occurred before time is worth getting worried over.

If there was some kind of indelible mark left by God that effected our cosmological models then it would be worth investigating. Since no such evidence exists, why bother?

Same goes for the multiverse and ayy's.

They might exist, but it doesn't effect us.

FPBP and /tread

Well folks, we can go home.

>Nothing that occurred before time is worth getting worried over.

It's not even that. As he puts it, "what happened before the universe?" is a question like "whats south of the south pole?" It has neither useful definition as a question nor an answer, because time is a feature of space; so there is literally no "before" to the universe.

The rich and educated are more likely to experiment with edgy new religions like Catharism centuries ago or Scientology today.

Science fiction, movies, books

People are allowed to do humorous speculations.

It's not like they claim multiverse theory is scientific(because it isn't).