Anyone who’s read my profile understands that I was sheltered from science. I’ve always appreciated it, and now that I’m older have a somewhat better (still simple) understanding. It boggles my mind the intelligence of those who enter these various fields, and I feel gypped that I was discouraged at a young age (“stop being a smarty-pants, no man wants to marry a woman smarter than him” - my 9 year old mind would roll its eyes and think “who says I want to get married?”...but alas, “she” died a slow intellectual death).

I thought I’d list a two Hypothesis and my confidence level. I am not listing Theories, however these may be used randomly in my comments in regard to my confidence levels.

Simulation Hypothesis (papers written, working on testing). We are living in a “simulation”. Personal requirements if true; none - continue as you are (after dealing with an emotional shockwave).
Confidence level 50%. Very interesting. My level of confidence, without researching the topic would be much lower, but damn...

Many Worlds (Multiverses) Hypothesis or Bubble Universes (papers written, working on testing). Our universe is a “bubble” amongst other bubble universes. Personal requirements if true; none - continue as you are.
Confidence level 25%. Testing requires some “shots in the dark” like finding an area where our universes “bumped” ...but then again, black holes appeared almost impossible to “find” at first...

Leaving it open for others...

Now as a side note, I did not include any “divine book, mythology, or oral tradition” in the above. Why you may ask? First, if you take the most popular western divine book, The Bible, it’s still under “peer review” (term used very loosely) - scholars and groups still haven’t reached a testable solution to settle questions, and from what I can see, the approach is consistently wrong.
Second, the basis for the belief in the “written word” includes belief in talking animals, global flood, giants, men living hundreds of years, the “earth or sun” standing still, survival in “a fish belly” for 3 days, aborting babies conceived in adultery, and a myriad of other physical/moral nonsense. So the “peer review” I speak of above isn’t based on reality with supporting previous evidence, building and adding knowledge.
Thirdly, the personal requirements for believing nonsense varies depending on your personal choice of what nonsense to believe - may, but not always require, adherence to Jewish law, not smoking/drinking/sex restrictions/food restrictions/language restrictions/thought restrictions, certain religious holiday celebration or avoidance, etc etc etc

Now I may accused of scientific bias. OK. How about instead of the word “bias” the word “appreciation” is used. I appreciate the world today as it is due to the scientific method. I appreciate my vehicle, our communication technology, medicine (testing and treatment of disease), food preservation and variety... all thanks to humans. Humans and human knowledge. The willingness for these disciplines to learn from mistakes, to “try again”, to uncover falsehoods, and to build on previous knowledge.