It is more plausible that more than one universe exists

Counter Argument/ Rebuttal/ Summary First I want to give my last critique of Pro’s argument of sheer possibility, or a quantitative approach to measure plausibility in term of intensity. Pro says what measures the degree of plausibility is his judgment call. I will give no critique of his opinion as long as it is subjective. I want to point out, however, that judgment call does not provide a clear reason why I (or anyone) should believe in his case. Subjective or objective, however, his quantitative approach has a serious problem. Let me repost his claim: 1) One universe exists = 1 universe exists 2) More than one universe exists = Anywhere between 2. .. .. .. .. .. .. infinity. If there were 2 universes then that would come under the 2nd option, if there were 3 universes that would come under the second option, if there were 4 universes that would come under the 2nd option, and so on and on approaching infinity. Now consider a claim. 1) Novak Djokovic is currently the best male tennis player in the world. 2) Novak Djokovic is currently not the best male tennis player in the world. A supporter of choice 2 could claim this way: Roger Federer may be currently the best male tennis player; Rafael Nadal may be currently the best male tennis player; Andy Murray may be; or, I may be the best tennis player, as far as I play tennis. Because the number of possibilities in option 2 outweigh option 1 (the number of male tennis players in the world versus 1) then option 2 must be more plausible. But we know, of course, that claim 1 is better. My point is that we can’t use a quantitative approach, or weighing the sides by counting and comparing their possibilities in some problems because it clearly misrepresents the fact. The Pro’s quantitative approach is, therefore, unjustified. Now I wish to rebut my position: to deny that the degree of plausibility of the fact that more than one universe exist is higher than the fact that one universe exists. It is true that we can’t discuss this issue with facts and evidences. Saying that many universe exists because one exists is as persuasive as saying that one universe exists because we can’t prove the existence of other. Saying the cause does create another universe is as persuasive as saying the cause creates only one universe. Therefore, what Pro says in my opinion is true, but he misses only one word. He says Con is of the view that we can't make a judgement of the what is plausible concerning the number of universes. Well, I am of the view that we can’t make a judgment of what is more plausible concerning the number of universes. This argument only, as stated above in my first presentation, has been sufficient to prove that Pro’s claim of the superiority of plausibility of one side is wrong, regardless of the claim that whether two sides are equal or not. Summary My job in this debate is to prove that the claim “It is more plausible that more than one universe exists” is wrong. In three parts of my critque, I believe I have done the following job: to counter Pro’s arguments of quantitative approach (sheer possibilities), of causes that create universe; to point of the impartiality of his claim that if one universe is possible, the other is possible (which does not support his case); and to present my own arguments of the lack of methods and evidences that keep us from deciding the degree of the likeliness to be true of both sides. I believe what I have done is sufficient to convince you of the falseness of the claim that is posted on the head of this page. Thank you for your judgment, no matter of what you choose.