>>1114
>Are you an astronomer?
An amateur Astronomer, yes. I don't have much time for observations beyond simple stargazing a few times a week.
>...if anyone says otherwise its on them to prove that there aren't any
Actually, science and logic both operate in just the opposite way. The observable substantiates claims. The in-observable constitutes nothing more than speculation.
Here's a simple example that might clarify this better. We have abundant, diverse observations in both astronomy and cosmology (as well as numerous corollary physics/chemistry data) that establish far beyond any reasonable doubt that the universe itself began in a hot creation event ~13.8Gya. This event is commonly referred to as 'The Big Bang' after the term derisively coined by the Astronomer Fred Hoyle in 1949.
Along with many other scientists of his day, he wanted to ridicule the very idea that the universe had a beginning, because that implies directly there was a First Mover (another, even more ancient philosophy). This is, God created the universe.
However, over decades of observations and using ever-newer instruments, the evidence mounted and was eventually irrefutable; the universe did have a very distinct beginning. Those are the science facts, again backed up by mountains of observational evidence.
However, the controversy hasn't ended, with many scientists morally offended by the very idea there is evidence for the handiwork of a god. But, the evidence is now undeniable insofar as the origin of the universe goes, and the obvious metaphysical implications still abide.
Accordingly, one of the many 'loopholes' that have been speculated is the so-called Multiverse Hypothesis. This is a fallacy. There is neither any way to observe a supposed other universe (more or less by definition), nor is there even the slightest shred of evidence for even one other, scientifically speaking.
On the one hand, science has shown there is a temporal history to the universe. On the other hand, men have conjectured that proves proves nothing, and 'anything goes' could possibly be real.
One is science, one is not. One has already established it's position by direct observation, one is mere speculation. The onus for proof is squarely on the latter, not the former.
>tl;dr
Science operates on what we do know -- not what we don't.