If you don't understand this, perhaps you're not an atheist mathematician.
Before you do as others before you have done and challenge my definition of the word Universe and tell me that it means "One word" or "One song" because the Universe was spoken into existence by god, you should check the true etymology of the word instead of reading tripe from a god-friendly website.
Please, don't think that I didn't check my definition before using it. I'm not so intellectually dishonest.
Definition: Everything in existence.
If you challenge me to prove it, I will do and I will expect an apology.
Etymology of Universe:
The word universe derives from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum. The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used. The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus', or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").
The Multiverse: This is speculation. It has not yet been supported by any evidence or shown to have predictive capability. It has not yet progressed from the status of hypothesis to theory.
Additionally because "Universe" is DEFINED as "Everything in existence", anything which might constitute something we've not yet measured or established will also automatically be part of the Universe, by definition once we've discovered it or proven it to exist.
Scientists often use inappropriate terms for things - How many times do we hear them talking about "other solar systems" ? There is only one sun called Sol !
The law of conservation of matter/energy states that matter/energy cannot be created.
Why would something that cannot be created, need creating?
Transcript for those who cannot hear the voice-over.
I can't draw for toffee, so just to demonstrate his omnipotence, he creates the Universe.
Now, Universe equates to "all that exists" so, what is the implication?
I've drawn a boundary around God and the subset labelled "Universe".
We can call that "Set A" but I prefer to call it "religion".
Note, that God is not included in the subset which represents all that exists.
Don't tell me I'm trying to prove anything.
Read the title and look at what category this video is in. Then look through the comments and see how many times I've corrected people who tell me I'm trying to prove something.
Is this you?
Me: Knock, knock.
Herbert: Who's there?
Herbert: Doctor Who?
Herbert: The Doctor wouldn't need to knock. He'd just materialise inside the building in his TARDIS.
If so, don't expect me to take you seriously.
(My apologies to those who really are named Herbert)
What if god IS the universe?
The universe works to natural principles. There is nothing supernatural about it.
Intelligence requires neural matter. The universe isn't controlled by neural matter and the amount of such spread throughout the universe would seem to be quite small.
We already have a name for the universe so we'd gain nothing by adding a new word. Pantheism appears to arise as a consequence of looking for a god, unsuccessfully and then concluding (as a result of starting from the preconception that a god exists) that it must be the entire universe.
Don't tell me that atheism is a belief.
Atheism is a lack of belief. If you insist that atheism is a belief or a religion, then so is apachydermism. How do you know if you are an apachydermist?
If you don't believe in the fully-grown, blue-spotted invisible elephant in my pocket then you are an apachydermist.
Gnostic/Agnostic - Refers to knowledge, not belief.
Theist/Atheist - Refers to belief or lack of belief.
For any given incarnation of a god there are a number of positions:
Gnostic theist - Knows there is and believes in this god.
Agnostic theist - Doesn't know for sure that this god exists but believes in it anyway.
Agnostic atheist - Doesn't know for sure that this god is fiction but sees no reason to believe in it.
Gnostic atheist - Knows that this god is fiction and therefore doesn't believe.
No-one has presented a god to me that is believable. As far as the gods I've heard and read about so far, I'm a gnostic atheist. They are works of fiction.
As far as the gods I may not yet have heard about, I'm an agnostic atheist.
Is it impossible for there to be some kind of god? No. I don't think so but I see absolutely no reason to believe in one, either.
So, are you a gnostic apachydermist or an agnostic apachydermist?
Or do you believe in the elephant? If you don't, he'll do unspeakable things to your nether regions. If you do, he might give you a bun.