If anything my worldview leaves me pen to the truth, not blind to it. I have not decided that gods might not exist, or that the multiverse is an accurate description. I reserve judgement on both until a time when we're not just making [educated] guesses. There is no dogma for me, only honest and open enquiry.

if your worldview is science based (which i think is probably a fair guess) then it means you disregard anything that is not physical (immaterial) or anything beyond human understanding. you say you have not decided against god but you have. you know of god but do not accept god, you will never have any more 'scientific' evidence for god than you do now because god isnt an iphone, it just doesnt work like that. so what are you waiting for? science cant probe beyond the big bang into non existence (obviously) and god isnt about coming down here and telling us what to do (or what would be the point?) so what are you gonna do? just walk around your whole life undecided like the answer isnt clearly right in front of your face?

Basically, yes. I'll only reach a conclusion when I have what I deem good reason to do so. I remain an open minded skeptic on whether aliens or gods exist, on whether there might be a bigfoot, on the existence of ghosts, the multiverse and so on. Any of these might be real, but none have enough supporting evidence for me to believe in them. You can act like this is an unreasonable position but it isn't.

ok mister reasonable i'll hold you to that look at it this way no one can 100 percent prove evolution, right? its just the greatest explanation for complex life ever conceived and it fits what all of the data tells us. in no way is this proof, it is just accepted that this is the best theory we have and we might as well treat it as truth because it is for all intensive purposes but we reserve the right to keep an open mind in case we discover some new evidence that makes us reevaluate our ideas. the same practice is used for most theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics. i assume you do this as well. you accept these ideas as 'soft facts' because they fit into our understanding of 'the natural world'. but this is where you become closed minded because i can do the same thing offer the best existing theory which explains all available evidence but instead of going with it until a more complete theory comes along like you would with some others, you shun the idea because you've been taught by the liberal media to discriminate against certain ideas automatically.

"Mister reasonable". I like how you use that as if it is a criticism. The problem here is you can't just go with an idea being most likely simply because we don't yet have other ideas. That is classic 'god of the gaps'. The difference between me accepting evolution as the best explanation whilst not accepting god as an explanation is that we have a mountain of independently verifiable data behind evolution and none behind god. They couldn't be further apart in that sense. As for the rant about liberal media, you're just throwing out ransom accusations based on nothing. You have no idea what I read.

oh lolz, you got me with that mister reasonable quip. i would like to say that it was tongue in cheek. (: we have gotten to the point where usually the discussion can go no further because it becomes an argument about semantics. 'god of the gaps' such an easy term to throw at someone. a man can say that god is what keeps our feet on the ground Einstein says that its curved space, is the first guy wrong? i would say it depends what the guy means as god. to say god created the universe is not saying we will never learn understand the act of creation. it is completely possible to hold an idea in your mind (and soul) without it taking the place of a different type of understanding. you are free to love jesus and be loved by jesus while still learning to understand the intricacies of his greatest gift to us (existence) i really hope youre beginning to understand.

You're just rambling now.