There can be no parallel universe

Since this is the last round, I will only address what has been said in this round. "The big bang hypothesis depends solely on the red shift being a Doppler shift. But this is not backed up by any other type of observation and the red shift could easily be from other causes." This is actually not true. The redshift is perfectly explained by special relativity (in fact, according to special relativity, redshift has to exist) [1] and Doppler effects, because light always moves at c in respect to the person viewing. Since we've proven through countless tests that Doppler is accurate, and we've proven through countless tests that special relativity is accurate [2]. We have also seen redshift work on other galaxcies, where the side spinning towards us is blue and the side spinning away is red. This makes the theory extremely strong by scientific standards. While there are other alternative theories, redshift best fits with what we observe, what we've tested, and what the numbers predict would happen. "Saying there are multi universes is the same thing as saying anything is possible. To believe multi universes are possible is to believe anything you are told. You must believe you currently have a platypus head with equal zeal to that of multi universes being possible. You have a platypus head but everyone else sees it as a human head." This is, of course, not true. It dismisses the fact that multi-universes are theorized based on confirmed scientific principles. They fit within the known laws of physics. It is more true to say, "To believe multiverses are possible is to believe that anything that fits within the known laws of physics is possible." To that, I'd agree, anything that fits within the known laws of physics is "possible," might not be true or fact, but it is possible. "Occam's razor There can be no parallel universe." There are three things that I wish to point out about the use of Occam's razor. 1) By accepting it, my opponent concedes the debate. Occam's razor only applies when two competing hypotheses have equal merit. That means my opponent is accepting that multiverses and paralell universes are possible, which was the purpose of this debate. 2) Occam's razor does not prove, nor disprove anything. It is merely a tool for which hypotheses to accept, not which one is right. 3) Max Tegmark has already addressed Occam's razor in regards to multiverses [4]. He stated, "A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler." With this, I've addressed my opponent's arguments in his last round and have not added more arguments except in direct response to counter his. Thank you, [1] http://www4.ncsu.edu... [2] http://www.popularmechanics.com... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_razor [5] Parallel Universes, Sci Am. 2003 May pg 40-51