The absolute absurdity of God

[Angrboda]

4. At some point you have to develop a metaphysical framework in which to operate any investigation. You seem to be saying that holding firm to a framework is somehow counterproductive. I would say that not holding to a framework actually prevents meaningful investigation or attaining knowledge. Think about it, if one does not ascribe to a PSR, science does not get off the ground.

Not accepting the PSR doesn't mean you don't explain things, it just means it isn't a necessary truth that all things have explanations. That seems more a philosophical trouble than an issue for science. As a practical matter, there are likely to always be a lot of things we can't explain, and, some things which we can never explain due to practical constraints (such as what happened at the start of the big bang). Science still gets off the ground as science is simply about describing ordered phenomena. The PSR is a proscriptive or normative principle which is neither practically nor logically required for science. So, your claim here is false. All that science requires is that some things are explicable, but that principle is not the PSR. (And science even suggests that certain things are fundamentally inexplicable, such as the specifics of radioactive decay, and other quantum phenomena, so it seems that science has no trouble denying the PSR after all.)

---

If the initial conditions of the universe have been different we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Pure speculation. There is not enough data to show that the way things are is the only way they could be. Conversely, there is not enough data to show that things could be other than what they are.

I'm pretty sure that from a strictly cause and effect standpoint, things indeed had to be the way they were or we wouldn't be here. I don't think he said that the way things are is the only way they could be. That would appear to be a straw man.