Heaven and hell are not just "illusory"

[Age]

I do not have to. your so-called 'arguments' refute themselves, in regards to the theory that there exists a 'multiverse' made up of universes.

The multiverse hypothesis is not particularly new. In fact, there are also quite a few theories in physics that also subscribe to the idea:

Once more, they are, literally, just 'hypothesises' and 'theories', which, obviously, do not necessarily have absolutely any relation at all on what is actually True and Real. For example, the 'multiverse theory' has no relation at all on what is actually irrefutably True, Right, Accurate, and Correct, which is; There is One Universe, only.

Which, by the way, is infinite and eternal, and did not begin and is not expanding.

This, my friend, cannot be refuted. And, I do not care how many 'theories' are made up by you human beings.

https://www.britannica.com/science/multiverse

multiverse, a hypothetical collection of potentially diverse observable universes, each of which would comprise everything that is experimentally accessible by a connected community of observers. The observable known universe, which is accessible to telescopes, is about 90 billion light-years across. However, this universe would constitute just a small or even infinitesimal subset of the multiverse. The multiverse idea has arisen in many versions, primarily in cosmology, quantum mechanics, and philosophy, and often asserts the actual physical existence of different potential configurations or histories of the known observable universe.

One useful way to classify multiverse models is by the degree to which the universes proposed by the model are connected—that is, by the degree to which they are part of a single system described by a well-defined physical and mathematical framework, generally with a common origin and possibly even interacting with one another.

The most well-developed model of a multiverse of proliferating space-times is based on the idea of cosmological inflation. Inflation is a hypothetical process of the early universe in which space-time would have expanded exponentially at a much faster rate than at present.

Because the concept of inflation has both good theoretical justification and observational support and because the process of generating new universes through inflation is based on reasonably well-understood physics, this model of the multiverse has gained far more prominence than previous ideas. The inflationary multiverse is also fairly connected, in that all the universes would inhabit the same space-time and interactions between neighbouring universes might, in principle, produce observable effects.

The difference with the above is that I use arguments from mathematics and not from physics.

What exactly refutes itself, according to you?

The definition of the 'Universe' word refutes absolutely anything in regards to the made up 'multiverse idea'.

You do not seem to be particularly capable of justifying your views.

This is because you believe that 'I' am an idiot, and the Fact that you, still, cannot even comprehend and understand what 'my view' here is, exactly.

[godelian]

There is One Universe, only.

How can you be so sure?

Which, by the way, is infinite and eternal, and did not begin and is not expanding.

Everybody else considers the idea that the physical universe is "infinite and eternal" to be utterly impossible because it requires the existence of actual infinities, which would lead to massive contradictions as infinities absorb all arithmetic. Furthermore, the idea that the universe "did not begin" flies in the face of all evidence in physics.

[Age]

There is One Universe, only.

How can you be so sure?

Once again, for you, because of the definition of the 'Universe' word.

Which, by the way, is infinite and eternal, and did not begin and is not expanding.

Everybody else considers the idea that the physical universe is "infinite and eternal" to be utterly impossible because it requires the existence of actual infinities, which would lead to massive contradictions as infinities absorb all arithmetic.

Why do you believe that the Universe, Itself, has to follow human beings and their interpretation of mathematics.

The fact that infinity exists in mathematics, should, to you anyway, be proof that infinity does exist. Which means that even to you the Universe, in fact, could be infinite, as well as eternal.

Furthermore, the idea that the universe "did not begin" flies in the face of all evidence in physics.

you, obviously, have not delved into this, much at all here.

The revolution of the earth, in relation to the sun, is 'evidence', to you human beings anyway, that the sun revolves around the earth. But, to you, does the sun actually revolve around the earth?

Now, there is not one solitary 'proof' that the Universe began, but, admittedly, there is a lot of you human beings who believe that there is 'evidence' that the Universe did actually begin.

But, let 'us' not forget, that there was also a lot of so-called 'evidence' that the sun revolves around the earth and that the earth is in the absolute centre of the Universe. Which also let 'us' not forget that there are, still, some of 'you' who believe that this is true.

Just like some of 'you' still believe that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, although there is not one solitary piece of 'proof' for this.

[godelian]

Just like some of 'you' still believe that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, although there is not one solitary piece of 'proof' for this.

The evidence supports the view that the universe is expanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

It is unreasonable to ask for proof about the physical universe.

[Age]

Just like some of 'you' still believe that the Universe began, and/or is expanding, although there is not one solitary piece of 'proof' for this.

The evidence supports the view that the universe is expanding:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe

It is unreasonable to ask for proof about the physical universe.

The evidence supports the view that the Universe revolves around the earth.

But, is 'evidence' 'proof'?

Why would it be, supposedly, unreasonable for me to ask for proof about the Universe to those who claim that the Universe began and/or is expanding when I have the actual and irrefutable proof that the Universe did not begin and is not expanding?

[promethean75]

I'm sorry did u just say the universe might revolve around the earth?