Fair enough. Can I clarify a few things:
1. Do you believe there is more than this universe, or are you a naturalist who invokes God pantheistically into the very physicality of our universe (I'm not asking if you are a pantheist by the way)? Maybe I should ask the same question this way, do you believe any facet of God is external to this physical universe?
2. How do you think about heaven?
3. Where are angels right now?
1. Way up the thread, in my response to the OP, I talked about pantheism. For me, pantheism is obvious. God is AT LEAST that which is omnipotent, omnipresent and eternal. Natural Law is that. Therefore, God is AT LEAST the Natural Law, and pantheism is true, as far as it goes.
The question for me is whether that explanation it complete. To to secularist or the naturalistic pantheist, that is as far as they feel it is necessary to go. But I think this is incomplete, because intelligence, mind - ours at the very least - is a clearly visible and obvious aspect of the universe, and natural law doesn't explain that. The "mind as a meat machine" hypothesis doesn't work. So the existence of mind demonstrates science ("SKEE-ence" - the ability to know, as contrasted with "SIE-ence" - the systematic study of phenonena). Humans, at least, are scient, and that gives rise to the question as to whether the Pan-Theos - the natural law which is the God who drives nature - is scient, or omniscient. The fact of our science demonstrates that yes, at least to the extent that we exist and think, nature is scient - and thinks about itself (like right now through us). That's interesting. What converts Pan-Theos, which is rather self-evident, into Theos, is the omniscience to go along with the omnipresence, omnipotence and timelessness that Natural Law already manifests.
Now, it could be that Pan-Theos is evolving towards Theos (and perhaps, then, the next creative "Big Bang"). It would be easier to believe that if (a) there were enough gravity to close the system , leading to an eventual "Big Crunch" to precede a subsequent Big Bang - a closed-system diesel-engine universe, and (b) the skies were noisy with the chatter of extraterrestrial life. But apparently there is not nearly enough gravity to close the system, and the skies are silent, so it seems increasingly likely that the system is open and that our Earth is the only place in the universe with biological life.
The diesel-engine universe is more comforting to the pantheistic, naturalist mind, because then the universe itself is eternal, going through endless cycles of cycles, and has no need of a starter. Our present universe, then, would be a unit on a number line stretching infinitely in both directions, through an endless series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. The closed-system universe of endless cycles of cycles is what the Hindus postulated. Contemplating it leads to a soul weariness and a desire to escape the circles of the world. The apotheosis of that desire to escape is found in the Buddha's annihilation of the soul in the state of nirvana. But apparently there is not enough gravity to close the system, so apparently the universe is not a cycle of cycles, and this returns us to the most disturbing issue for the naturalist pantheist: existence out of nothing is hard to accept. Endless cycles of cycles obviates the problem elegantly. But the scientific evidence shows that it isn't true.
The evidence we have suggests that the universe came out of nothing and will expand forever: a ray, not a unit on a number line. The evidence further suggests that the only place in the universe where there is life is hear. There are lots of planets and stars, but there are lots of grains of sand on the beach: the plethora of those things does not imply that life "must" arise on one because of sheer numbers. Life doesn't spontaneously arise on the surface of the sextillion sand grains on the earth, and conditions here are favorable for it. There's no particular reason other than that it makes a better story to expect that those glowing sand grains across the skies give rise to life either. And the silence of the skies seems to rather confirm this verdict.
That, then, leaves the pantheist with the certitude of a God here - lying inn or behind the Nature - but no way to explain the existence of the God before the Big Bang. That lends itself towards the possibility of theism, but won't prove the case to a naturalist.
As for me? Well, I experienced three direct miracles and talked with God - or something I took to be God - several times directly, out of the air. So I have actual data that answers the question for me: pantheism is true, but incomplete. "I work on my nature through my nature" is what God said to me. That much was already obvious. The important part is that there is MORE than simple pantheism: there is a real mind behind the law. It IS, and it KNOWS it is. That is the difference between a naturalistic pantheist, and a theistic pantheist. I am the latter.
Having confirmed Theos through the happy circumstance of miracle, the question of WHO Theos is was most important to me. God and I discussed physics and the limitations of what he will and won't do (for me). We didn't discuss religion. How one goes from encountering God to deciding that the God one encountered is the one Jesus spoke of is a different chapter. Your questions currently deal with physics and geography, which is where my native religion lies. To get to the further stuff about morality and Jesus, or Mohammed, that is all later in the process, for me anyway, and not currently on the table.
Let me answer your other questions.
2. "Heaven" is the skies. In Hebrew there is one word: Hashammayim. In the Hebrew hieroglyphic pictographs this word is a sentence of pictures that says:"The Breath Cuts-in-Two Chaos (depicted as waves) ) from Chaos, and the Mighty Arm and Hand (of God) is upon the Chaos/Waters". So the pictures that form the word "Skies" in Hebrew also echo the overlying story of the sheet that divides "waters" from "waters". There is no OTHER word in Hebrew that means some supernatural place. When Elijah is taken up, it is into the skies. Genesis tells us "In summit [when] Powers fattened the skies and the land..." ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth".
In Greek it is the same. There is one word: Ouranus (Uranus). It means "sky". It's the name of the original sky god, who looked down at the earth goddess, Gaea, and they conceived the various other gods. People have been personifying nature in all cultures. Generally one can see the things that we call by different names in the religions of old.
As far as the Christian Heaven goes - a place to which the "souls" of people "go" - none of that was revealed by God in Scripture, and nobody can point to a specific saint to whom God revealed that in words. Rather, it is an amalgamation of words in Scripture and the old religions of the West. If you are asking where I think the spirits of people and animals go when we die, I would say that all I CAN know about that is what God has revealed, He hasn't revealed a thing to me about that directly, so I have to trust that what he revealed through the source I trust - Jesus - is true. What Jesus revaled is different from the traditional Christian die and go to Heaven, or die and go to Hell mythos. Jesus did not reveal that. He revealed something a bit different. Christians abuse me when I say exactly what Jesus said, so I am reticent to tell Christians what they are already supposed to know unless I am asked to, and unless they promise beforehand that they won't abuse me.
3 Where are the "angels" right now? To answer your question, we first have to define what we are looking for. "Angel" is an English word, an adoption from the Latin "angelus", which is itself an importation of the Greek word "aggelos". It means "messenger" or "newsbearaer" (Thus, the English "evangel" is the Latin "evangelus", which is imported from the Greek "euaggelos" - which is to say "eu'" , which is the prefix for "good", and "aggelos" which is "message" or "news". The euaggelos - the evangel - is the composite word "good message" or "good news".)
In Hebrew, the word is "malach" (as in Malachi - was that prophetic messenger a flesh and blood man?), and it means "Messenger".
So, just as with wind/breath/spirit I will use the word God used directly - messenger. An angel is a messenger. Sometimes he uses men, and sometimes he uses non-biological temporarily corporeal spirits (remember, we men are breaths/spirits breathed INTO flesh, but when we die, the spirit/breath goes on with its consciousness and memories even as the body crumbles back to powder).
So, the intelligent beings that god breathed out into the open air and space, not into physical bodies, we can call "Spirits". They are "Angels" only when God sends them carrying a message. Note, that God sometimes speaks a message directly and his breath travels directly with the message - this is God's Spirit - a Holy Spirit - carrying the message, not another Spirit that will go on as a separate being. The Holy Spirit, or at least a Holy Spirit, is sometimes an angel. Men who carry a message from God are angels when they do it. Again, was the "Prophet" Malachi (Messenger) a man at all, or was he a SPirit sent from God. And was that Spirit God speaking directly, or was that Spirit a separate, permanent incorporeal being named "Messenger" (Malachi)? The question is unanswerable, but the point is that "angel" means messenger, so there are different possible answers to your question.
What YOU mean is: where are the incorporeal, permanent Spirits, such as Gabriel or Raphael or Michael - the named spirits who carry messages. Also Satan and his demons who are, likewise, beings of spirit - malign ones to us (particular as they animate diseases within us, as the gospels show).
I can only answer directly on what I know: the spirits that have talked me were intelligent, invisible beings capable of comprehending my thoughts, pressing thoughts into my mind. The being I identify as God is also capable of directly taking command of my physical body and controlling it, and parts of it.
I cannot see any of these things unless I am allowed to. Whether that means they are all around but invisible, like most of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light is a very small piece of it), or they are elsewhere and come here, I cannot say. Obviously I know that there is a place somewhere in the sky where the resurrected Jesus is - the Apocalypse according to John tells me that. But on an ongoing basis where are the Spirits called angels, or the Spirits called Demons. Here. There., Perhaps points in between.
I would suppose that if as discussed above, earth is the only planet that has life on it, they may be more concentrated in these parts than out there in the Cosmos, as God is present directly thorugh his law everywhere, but Spirits with minds can only interact with other minds where there are minds. Also, Jesus told us that each tiny child has an angel that looks always at the Father's face, and that Churches, too, have angels. Demons apparently don't like dry, arid, barren spaces without living things in them, because you can't tempt a sand pile: it's going to follow God's Natural Law automatically, and you can't get it to disobey, or make it sick, or kill it. Thus Jesus, at their request, cast them into pigs (who, then so distraught with being possessed, stampeded into the water and smothered out their own breath with the water rather than stay possessed by theis foreign and evil breaths.
I think I have answered these questions. If not, I am, of course, available to continue to try to do so.