It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

I would like to give a few critiques of Pro's points before giving my own arguments. First Statement: Pro says we know that a universe is possible, then it is possible that another universe exists. That point has nothing wrong in itself. However, it does not help in any way to support the Affirmative in the question It is more plausible that more than one universe exists? I can say with the same spirit of defending my argument that because we have no knowledge of another universe, it is possible that the universe we are living now is the only universe. Those two assertions (in bold), or hypothetical statements about a possibility, are of the same weigh and do not help to support any side. The Affirmative ‘s first claim, then, can be effectively invalidated. Personal/Interpersonal/Non-existence Causes: Let me repeat briefly Pro's arguments before giving my critiques. Pro says whatever things creating the universe, it will duplicate its action. In my opinion, this argument relies on a debatable, not solid and well-proved, premise. That premise is that, given the ability to duplicate its action, that thing will ultimately choose to do so. However, we have no information of its motives, characteristics or powers (what if it can only produce one universe) and thus, whether it will choose to do so remain a mystery. The fallacy of the premise thus invalidates this claim as well. Sheer possibility: Pro then uses the qualitative argument to justify his/her claim. Shortly put, because his/her second option (more than one universe exists) has more possibilities than his/her first option (one universe exists), then it is more plausible. Possibilities then become quantitative or countable, with each holds the same level of plausibility; as the choice which has more possibilities win in the race. However, now I wish to compare two possibilities and attempt to prove that they are not at the same level of plausibility: one universe exists versus, say, 13247 universes exist. Now which one has more degree of plausibility? Undoubtedly our intuition says the former prevails, because the latter seems to belong only to a larger pattern of possibilities, which includes every number which is larger than one. Thus possibility does not hold the same level of plausibility. Consequently, the degree of plausibility can not be judged solely in quantitative term; the possibility claim can be invalidated. Having by far given my critiques, I now process to the presentation of my arguments. First we need to have a proper definition of the word "plausible." In the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary (7th edition), Plausible (adj) means reasonable and likely to be true. I will take the latter meaning, for the sake of simplicity, for this debate. To paraphrase this, the topic will be: It is more likely to be true that more than one universe exists. Now I will negate this claim. There are two possible positions for me to choose: I can support the idea that "It is more likely to be true that one universe exists" or "It is equally likely to be true that one or more than one universe exist." I wish to defend the second position. My first argument is that the best resource we have from this elusive matter is sheer speculation, which can't ensure the degree of plausibility (or likeliness to be true) of each side. As I mention in my first critique, saying that "we know that a universe is possible then it is possible that another universe exists" is equally convincing in our intuitionist mind to saying that "because we have no knowledge of another universe, it is possible that the universe we are living now is the only universe." Saying that "the thing [which creates this universe] chooses to duplicate its actions" can be as persuasive as saying that "the thing [which creates this universe] chooses not to duplicate its actions." Such arguments may not exceed the position of speculation until science or logic can sufficiently prove otherwise. My second argument is that any attempt to invent new techniques to assess the degree of plausibility of the speculation, as far as it remains a speculation, is likely to end up in trouble. An early attempt to convert it into quantitative "possibilities" has problems in itself. Counting the number of supporters for each speculation does not help either. Although detailing the problems in each technique does not help claiming that all techniques do not work, it lends somewhat credentials to the ideas that new techniques is unlikely to succeed. A successful critique of this opinion must point out a technique that could actually work. Therefore it is safe to say that neither sides win in the race of plausibility. Consequently put, it is equally likely to be true that one or more than one universe exists. If this is true, then what the Pro is claiming of the superiority of the degree of plausibility of one side is false. I look forward to Pro's reply.