I think I've found a good way of expressing my views:-
Any unobservable, thus non-falsifiable claim is made from a pool of infinite such claims. (A god who's sacred number is 1, a god who's sacred number is 2...)
To take one claim, such as the existence of a specific god, and say it is true, is to say with certainty something which actually has 1/infinite probability.
(Actually the probability is infinite/absolute infinite because there are infinite possibilities involving say, a god who's sacred number is 1, but it is essentially the same as 1/infinite)
So, any specific definition of an unobservable thing has a 1/infinite probability. Each individual unfalsifiable belief is highly unlikely, ~0% chance.
However, to claim no such unobservable possibilities exist, is also a specific unobservable claim, and thus follows suit.
Thus, agnosticism (to be without knowledge) is the most rational position on the matter.
I never claimed to know the ultimate fate of the universe.
I claimed that oblivion was a rational conclusion given what we do know. Absolute certainty in anything is absurd. To assume the sun will exist in a decade with 100% confidence is not reasonable, but to assume ~100% confidence is reasonable.
Within that frame of reference, we are familiar with the birth-life-death cycle, and we have no cause to assume things could be otherwise, even at a scope of a 2^trillion years from now. I'm not 100% certain, but I am ~100% certain.
The main problem with that point is that we are not talking about a mere 2^trillion years. We are discussing infinite years from now.
Whether or not time is infinite, one cannot, at this time, make a rational conclusion on the matter (because it is unobservable at this time).
Also, a definition of whatever turns into oblivion is needed, in order to have a clear definition of oblivion. (what is lacking in order to create oblivion?)