911

The universe exists because of the big bang; cannot be proven

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; cannot be proven

MrWhy

"Proof" is not a word that should be used in debating a god, the BB, etc. Evidence or preponderance of evidence will allow more progress on these questions.

Proof in this area is very hard to get.
Theories are accompanied by evidence.
Hypothesis is a basis for experimentation. To search for evidence.
Speculation/conjecture may be entertaining, or even interesting, but it's not likely to contribute much knowledge.

Astreja

There is actual evidence that appears to support the Big Bang theory, such as Hubble's Law.

No comparable evidence has been found to support the existence of any sentient being comprised of all the atoms in the universe. (If you have any actual scientific data that says otherwise, please bring it out so we can test it. That's Nobel Prize material for sure.)

And these are not the only two possibilities, either. The universe isn't as simple as "If A is wrong, then B must be correct by default."

FatherMithras

Well, you simply are making an incorrct statement. Nothing can be "proven" in science. Red shift and background microwave radiation are evidence for the big bang. Creation has no evidence. IE your statement should read

The universe exists because of the big bang; evidence exists and it's the best conclusion to fit the data

Every atom in the universe is a part of God; vilates ochams's razor and has no support in science or evidence for it.

911

How about this: man is made up of atoms; man is a sentient being

David Vestal

The first is our best explanation so far for the natural phenomena we observe around us. As such, it has significant value.

The second is just a moot sort of wondering. It explains nothing, predicts nothing, is evidenced by nothing, and accommodates everything. As such, it has very little or no value.

Thus, the first is better.

911

You sound really desperate if I may say so.
You are not saying that it is without basis.

Thus you have opened the floodgates for all the loonies, if you like, an excuse.

Thus 911 and the London bombing will continue.

Secondly, if we dismiss every idea on this basis - it becomes self fulfilling.

Astreja

Man is made up of atoms: Appears to be a correct statement, based on my knowledge of science's current theories of matter.

Man is a sentient being: Also appears to be correct, but I would have to see a firm definition of "sentient" to hold a strong opinion one way or the other. For the purpose of simplicity, let's say yes, Man is a sentient being.

However, my cat Bastet is also a sentient being made up of atoms. I have not been proven to be Her and She has not been proven to be Me.

So, given that one can have two discrete atom-based sentient beings in the same room, how logical is it to postulate a universe comprised of Just One?

911

I agree how sentient" is defined is critical.

How about this? Is it possible that you and your cat are one sentient being after all?

911

or this; a distinct individual life can be made up of individual components of lives.

The humand body is made up individual living cells; but the question remains whether these individual living cells can be considered sentient beings in their own right.