It is logical to assume there are parallel universes

1. If the universe was a random occurrence"If the space outside the universe was eternal, time would not exist, how, then, would a universe with a sense of time come about"Here Con makes a few mistakes. First of all, if something exists for any length of duration, it has time. Time may not flow the same way that our universe does, but that does not mean it is not there. The void has to be infinitely existing because it is a void, and their is nothing to destroy it. It is just an empty space. I guess you could say that if the universes are gone, the void is destroyed, but the void is still there. Every space in our universe is occupied by some form of matter, but that is not the case in a void, so a void does not have entropy. Also, the void may be eternal, but the universe within the void that has it's own laws of physics could very well not be, since the void is just an empty space and the universe has matter and entropy.2. If the universe is infinitely expanding their must be a larger space holding it."We have no proof to support either argument"Con specifically asked for no empirical evidence, however we do have mathematical proof that the universe is infinitely expanding, which is pure logic. Logic follows that if the universe which contains matter is expanding, their must be some kind of space holding it. "It is logical that their was nothing before the universe"That is not logical. That is an unsupported assertion. This is under the presumption that their were no parallel universes. You cannot just assume that you are correct about the resolution. That is not how logical debate works."If their was something before it, how did it come about?"Perhaps the same way our universe did. If their are indeed parallel universes, then some of them would have been created after our universe. Therefore, our universe would be the "before" universe. The resolution was not about answering the question of where the first universe came from, rather, it is just saying that it is logical to assume that their is at least one other universe. I have shown that it is indeed logical to believe in parallel universes, while Con has committed one fallacy after another by basing his arguments and rebuttals on the assumption that their are no universes. What this means is that he uses circular logic, because "there was nothing before the universe" is both P1 and C. 2. If an omnipotent creator made the universe"Seeing how he lives outside of the universe, he must live outside of every universe".Why is that necessary? What logical process of thought got you to that conclusion? Whose to say he wouldn't create his own universe to live in?"The void would be his own domain"So your telling me a being with no constraints on his power would choose to live in a barren void? The refutation is self evident.3. Membrane theory" An infinite number of something is a theoretical impossibility"I think you and me have different definitions of infinity. Infinity in my book means constantly producing new ones. You could say life is infinite, if it weren't for those pesky natural disasters. "If the universe is infinite, how could it produce a finite universe?"Whose to say the new universe it creates is finite? A universe with infinite size is different than a universe with infinite duration. It is very important not to switch those terms. Just because a universe cannot stop expanding in size does not mean it cannot cease to exist once all of the matter is expanded and gone.====================================================================================My arguments have logically proved that their is parallel universes while Con has committed one fallacy after another. I will accept Con's request not to post in the last round, however, it won't matter. I ask voters not to consider any new rebuttals because pro will not have a chance to refute them.