> Science can't be used to address the veracity of that hypothesis
Thus, it is not a hypothesis but a conjecture. (Or, perhaps more accurately, an omphaloskeptic intellectual autoeroticism.)
> much to the apparent dismay of the fundamentalist atheists
Neither a fundamentalist nor an atheist myself, but I’ve never seen any of the latter “dismayed” by the fact that people can string together words to create a proposition outside of the domain of scientific inquiry.
> Similarly, one could argue that supernatural beings from alternative universes are constantly intervening in local events
One could assert that easily, but to argue it one would need first to establish some framework in which something could be offered to support that conclusion.
Thus, it is not a hypothesis but a conjecture. (Or, perhaps more accurately, an omphaloskeptic intellectual autoeroticism.)
> much to the apparent dismay of the fundamentalist atheists
Neither a fundamentalist nor an atheist myself, but I’ve never seen any of the latter “dismayed” by the fact that people can string together words to create a proposition outside of the domain of scientific inquiry.
> Similarly, one could argue that supernatural beings from alternative universes are constantly intervening in local events
One could assert that easily, but to argue it one would need first to establish some framework in which something could be offered to support that conclusion.