Can a time paradox really destroy the universe?
Its the causality loop of a wormhole in space and time that could cause the end of the universe: You set up a lead ball to shoot though the entrance of the wormhole, and the exit of that wormhole emerges at the moment and place that the lead ball originally entered it. That ball will double back to the beginning, and now you have 2 balls entering the wormhole, then 4, 8, 16, 32,64,128,256,512,1024,2048,4096.. the mass growing exponentially over and over and over again. Since all this happens in effectively zero time (the balls are going back to the moment they left, in that single moment), in that effectively zero time the mass of all those lead balls, now a Graham's number in mass (don't google Graham's Number, it is so big it will give you a headache trying to understand it) will collapse into a super singularity, that literally out masses the entire universe by 10 to the 10'th to the 10'th to the 10'th (and so on for several more thousand light years that-a-way --->) power... utterly destroying it in a femtosecond. And we would see the utter crunch of our entirety as a fleeting "shoomp!" sound, as all the universe gets pulled into your little experiment. Good job.
"destruction leads to a very rough road but it also breeds creation"?
Are both construction and destruction both merely rearrangements? Energy for example, can not be created or destroyed, only transferred to a different format. However, they cannot be exactly the same simply because you and I have ways to differentiate the two. Perhaps we cannot always be sure of which is which but we have two different words for them so obviously they are different in some way. Maybe the view of looking down on destruction is a mirror of life itself, life is 'created' and we then have to opportunity to do something with it (even if you take a nihilistic view of existence you can still set yourself challenges or live purely for the 'moment' or whatever you choose) but death (representing destruction) is possibly the end of what alot of people see as something good, a gift.
Science and religion have been thought of as separate entities for many centuries, but many scientists have been pious and religious figures have adhered to scientific principles. There are too many factors that go into answering this question, but it is also very vague and depends on what religion you follow exactly. In my opinion, science and religion can exist side by side but again this depends on the doctrine which is being followed. To answer your question, I don't think science will eventually lead to the destruction of religion. Even when science was known of, religion still prevailed within society because it was an explanation for phenomena that science couldn't explain and still can't. We don't exactly know how the universe was created, nor can we answer why we are here on earth through science. This is where religion is needed to balance the unexplainable aspects of life because we cannot use science to explain everything. I personally have specific thoughts upon religion that aren't characteristic of a specific religion, but I'm also a firm believer of science. I will, however, continue to follow both, but the truth is that there is no need for only one to exist. They can both live in harmony with one another.
Do black holes lead you to other parts of the universe?
Only in science fiction stories do black holes lead to other places. In reality, they become so densely packed with the matter they absorb that they eventually explode forming new stars and setting the course for the formations of planets. Black Holes are not really Holes. Black Holes are round like suns or planets and have gravity so strong they can suck in light rays from other stars. When you look at the sky and you see light from the stars everywhere, except in the spot where a black hole is sucking in all the light, it looks like a "Black Hole" in space. Black Holes form when a supernova collapses at the end of it's life. All the matter gets drawn together from the gravity in the center of the dead supernova. The more matter that is sucked to the center, the more gravity created. The more gravity, the more matter it can suck in. Eventually it sucks in so much matter and energy that it explodes and forms new suns, solar systems and even galaxies.
A lot of people are deciding the power level of the God's of destruction based on the mortal level of their respective universe, but that is not really correct.First, let me explain mortal level. We know that the mortal level of universe 1, 5, 8 and 12 is above 7 and that of universe 7 is the second lowest. So many assume that all fighters of other universe will be super powerful, but that's not true. Grand Priest mentioned that Mortal level is the average power level of all the beings in the universe.Now let's assume that there is a universe 2 where everyone has a power level between 4 and 5 and their mortal level is 4.6 and than in universe 7 most of the people have power level of 1–2 but only few fighters have high power level of 5, 6 or 8 like goku , gohan vegeta, piccolo and average mortal level of 3.1. Now, in this case the average mortal level of universe 2 is more than that of universe 7 but since the fight will be among the top ten fighters, therefore universe 7 will win as their top fighters have power level of 5,6 and 8 while the top fighters of universe 2 will have a power level of 5.We also know that mortal level of universe 6 is more than that of universe 7, but we also saw that universe 6 lost to universe 7 in the tournament and that except Hit, all of their fighters were defeated by Vegeta.Therefore, higher mortal level does not mean that your top fighters will be more powerful and therefore it also does not mean that your god of destruction is more powerful.Infact it was mentioned that mortal level doesn't depend on the power of the God of destruction.P.S. I think, there will only be four to five fighters with the same power level as that of goku, Vegeta and gohan. And Beerus will be among the top 5 or 6 God’s of destruction.
Why does the universe have no end?
The universe cannot have an end, it has to be infinite and completely symetrical. This leads to three possible scenarios for its shape a saddle shape, a spheroid, and a flat plane. Different experiments have led scientists to believe that space is an infintie flat plane. The main reason why we know that if there were edges to space then we would have to me moving towards some objects and away from others. This is not the case as all observed entities are moving away from us. This leads to the assumption of a infinite expanding universe. As far as our perception is concerned we are not inside of anything since the universe occupies all of the space that we can observe so the universe is everything. But if somehow you could step out of our universe into a higher dimension you dont know what you would see. There are some theorists who believe our universe is one of many universe. But since there is no way to see out of the universe we may never be able to answer this question. I agree that if you start thinking in this manner it can get quite perplexing To the person who said space must have an edge to expand think of a baloon. If we go down a dimension imagine that our galaxy is a penny glued on the surface of a baloon. To us the baloon has no edges at all since we cannot see out into the third dimension, yet the baloon is expanding. So from our vantage point we live on an infinite surface that is expanding and causing nearby pennies to all travel away from us.