Do we need a new paradigm for the origin of the universe

I have been reading this forum for a while and I find it very useful for my school work. Please bear with my limited knowledge but I would like to submit an issue.My understanding of the universe is that it is - "fit" for the emergence of intelligent life, otherwise I could not write this.There seems to be a number of parameters that would need to have remained constant to allow evolution to occur, including; the speed of light, atomic charge ratios and how the sun burns its fuel.I am sure there a lot more - I hope people can help me here.I have not seen any science that clarifies why these values are constant or that the laws of physics are geared up to specifically support life.When considering the origins of our universe; in light of the above, it seems to me, we have 2 key possibilities:1. G-d created the Universe - i.e. G-d the creator who set up the universe so life could exist. This is not a creationist perspective but G--d created the seeds from which the universe evolved.2. A myriad of universes (multiverse) all with different properties, with our universe having the right conditions for intelligent life (Martin Reiss). String theory alludes to more dimensions than we are aware of within the cosmos. I understand that these unique universes could possibly co-exist within these dimensions.I am not sure how you would prove these 2 possibilities, so I would suggest that science can never disprove G-d just a science can never prove the origin of our universe within a multidemension cosmos.Therefore the origin of the universe is not an issue that science can comprehensively address and we need a new, as yet undefined, discipline for such a profound subject.If this is accepted what would be the paradigm of such a discipline and what perspectives would it need to include, etc scientific, deistic, philisophical or "other"TOPIC : Big Bang and CosmologyEdited by letchim, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi letchim and welcome to EvC.One thing about your post struck a cord in me. I would like to ask you this:Can science disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster as creator of the universe?The answer is no.Science cannnot prove anything, really. This is the province of maths.Science can only say that the data supports the theory.So far the data we have availible does not support creation by the christian god.It does not rule it out, but the evidence we have at hand in no way points to divine creation. The thing you forget is that the reach of science keeps improving.You seem to suggest that because don't know everything we need to redefine how science works.This is similar to the way Behe attempts to redefine science to accept ID.This won't wash. The scientific method is the most powerful tool we have for determining the nature of the universe. That fact that it a work in progress is in no way a problem.Science works in increments, learning new things every year, refining theories to improve their predictive accuracy.Hope that provides food for thought.Edited by Larni, : DVD extras.

Thanks for your response Larni, can I just clarify a few things from my perspective. I tried to keep the original post concise.

quote:

---

Can science disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster as creator of the universe?
The answer is no.

---

Within human evolution mythology and archetypes seem to be an important aspect to our psychological development (Jung) - the primary mechanisms by which our biology cognises the external world, the G-d/s myth/archetypes as a creator seems to have been with us for a long time according to history and palaeontology, Flying Spaghetti Monster has not.Jung also suggested that these myths and archetypes create an essential framework for our collective interpretation of our perception and cognition. I suggest that the G-d myth/archetype cannot be so easily dismissed from this debate.

quote:

---

Science cannnot prove anything, really. This is the province of maths. Science can only say that the data supports the theory.

---

According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."This appears, by default, to operate from a multidisciplinary basis, not just relying on math for objective proof.

quote:

---

So far the data we have availible does not support creation by the christian god.

---

I did not mention a Christian G-d, this is far too tightly defined in terms of human characteristics.The definition I alluded to was “G-d the creator who set up the universe so life could exist.”A possible analogy would be a Type “undefined” entity that had ability to manipulated existence at a dimensional level, similar to a Type III civilization that could play with Planck energy.

quote:

---

This is similar to the way Behe attempts to redefine science to accept ID.

---

G-d forbid - noLet us consider the developmental history of science.Well into the eighteenth century, science and natural philosophy were not quite synonymous, but only became so later with the direct use of what would become known formally as the scientific method, which was earlier developed during the Middle Ages and early modern period in Europe and the Middle East.It is a similar evolution that I address when I talked about a “new paradigm” when attempting to understand the origin of the universe....a new evolution of our collective though processes, including the scientific constructs - possibly?Edited by letchim, : No reason given.

Um, by purposely not using a vow, you slammed right into our faces that you intended the creator of the universe... your universe to be the christian god.If you genuinely aren't referring to the christian god, prove it to us by referring to this creator as allah or buddha from now on.

I prefer to use Thor if you dont mind :0Forgive me but you point losts me

Hi, Letchim. Welcome to EvC! If you believe that ancient paradigms hold inate superiority over novel paradigms, why do you think we need a novel paradigm for the origin of the universe?That strikes me as a bit contradictory.

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

Not so much superiority, I am not sure of a heirachy, more that the novel has a common ancestry with the ancient assuming the novel is a compliation of the current world views

Heres the thing, though. Jung is to psychology what proponents of aetheric transmission of light is to physics.You cannot validly argue that one idea is more valid as a respresntation of reality based on the amount of time they have been in the public domain. Jung did not know what we know about perception and cognition. A psychology undergrad knows more than Jung could have. There is no mention of proof here though, is there? My point is that you do not prove things with science. I think Taz and Mantis fielded this one. By the way, last time I looked I think Taz worshiped Loki. Well here is the thing: science is the best method of learning about reality.As far as I can see you have failed to show where it is so lacking that we must discard it in favour of something yet to be defined.

At this time, we aren't sure what unique evidence would exist that would strongly suggest that our universe was part of a multiverse - though the evidence is entirely consistent with this hypothesis (that is, when we do the maths it works out - but there are a number of different ways we can do the maths and we aren't sure which way is the right one at this time). There are some pieces of evidence that might falsify certain theories with regards to this. Some variations may be unfalsifiable.Unfortunately, an intelligent Creator Being would be consistent with ANY evidence and potentially refutable with none.It becomes a matter of epistemological (philosophy of knowledge and confidence therein) choice as to which variant we have more confidence in. I think a better wording would be 'the origin of the universe is not an issue that science has comprehensively answered. It may never answer this question to a level that satisfies all people, but scientists (specifically cosmologists at this stage) continue to think up knew experiments and develop new apparatus (like the Large Hadron Collider) so that we can rule out certain ideas and gain confidence in others. Science, being the currently the most successful system for increasing knowledge about the natural world, is still our best hope. However, if someone does come up with a better system I'm sure we'll slowly move towards that.'. But that's just me. Once again this depends on your epistemological preferences. Presumably there would be some requirement to weed out ideas that are silly, meaningless, pointless or wrong. You would probably need some kind of verificationism probably based on how well any idea coheres with our observations of reality, the ideas would probably need to be consistent (not self contradictory), and we can gain confidence in them if the ideas produce practical results that can be relied upon. Presumably any idea that has no way of being falsified would be ignored as pointless.Sounds like science to me, but feel free to correct me.

quote:

---

There seems to be a number of parameters that would need to have remained constant to allow evolution to occur, including; the speed of light, atomic charge ratios and how the sun burns its fuel.

---

Well, you're wrong right off the bat, because the speed of light isn't constant.Beyond that quibble, however, you are making the mistake of assuming that the laws of physics of our universe are necessary to support life because it's the only one you have experience with. In order to establish that our specific physical properties are the only ones that can support life of any type, you need to do considerably more than simply state it as a fact.

quote:

---

I have not seen any science that clarifies why these values are constant or that the laws of physics are geared up to specifically support life.

---

Here you are getting it bassackwards. It's not that the laws of physics are geared to specifically support life. Instead, life has evolved to flourish within the constraints and opportunities afforded by the laws of physics.

quote:

---

I am not sure how you would prove these 2 possibilities, so I would suggest that science can never disprove G-d just a science can never prove the origin of our universe within a multidemension cosmos.

---

Science is never about proof. Science is about making the best guess we can, based on the available information that we have. Science never proves anything. If you learn nothing else from your time here at this forum other than this, you will be ahead of many people who have spent years posting here.Beyond that, however, your suggestion that science cannot rule out the possibility of any supernatural creator is true. By definition, science deals with the natural. The supernatural, by definition, is beyond our ability to discern with our senses. Science is based on evidence that we gather with our senses. Thus, science will never have anything to say directly about the supernatural. The most that science will ever be able to say is that we can explain things without having to resort to the supernatural. Even that is insufficient to prove the absence of the supernatural, except to those who rely on the supernatural as an ad hoc rationalization for things that they can't otherwise understand.Now, to the extent that you wish to rely on your supernatural creator paradigm to explain that which science cannot (yet) explain, you are engaging in what is called the "god of the gaps" argument. The danger of this argument is that science is forever expanding, filling in gaps that previously existed. As science grows, the room for the supernatural shrinks. To most people whose belief in a supernatural creator includes some element of divinity in the creator, the idea of an incredible shrinking god is rather unpalatable.In any event, the suggestion that we need a new paradigm to explain things that science cannot has a long and dubious history, with not a single success story to suggest that there is any merit to the idea. You have added nothing to the basic "god of the gaps" game plan that would make me think that your proposal is any more likely to produce positive results than any others that have come before you.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

quote:

---

Heres the thing, though. Jung is to psychology what proponents of aetheric transmission of light is to physics.

---

According to "Analytic Psychology: Its Theory and Practice" Jung was the founder of analytical psychology and one of the foremost thinks in modern psychology.

quote:

---

You cannot validly argue that one idea is more valid as a respresntation of reality based on the amount of time they have been in the public domain

---

I am speaking about myths and archetypes not representations of reality.An archetype is a prototype after which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognised by all. I am relating to G-d the symbol, and how symbols are the foundation of our reality constructs, there is more to our understanding than the material (Pearson, Carol (1989). The hero within: six archetypes we live by).

quote:

---

There is no mention of proof here though, is there? My point is that you do not prove things with science.

---

Yes your right; Proof - (dictionary) the evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.The evidence and argument development can be collated by a multidisciplinary group including scientists and not just mathematicians, as you pointed out?

quote:

---

As far as I can see you have failed to show where it is so lacking that we must discard it in favour of something yet to be defined.

---

Did I say disregard, no I said that I could not see how you could prove a G-D OR multiverse.Yes the Mona lisa can understand and even prove the existence of the artist using mathematics to define a 3rd dimension; a mathematics that is not material but cognitive in nature (therefore affected my ancient and novel archetypes) but how would the other materialist based science gather evidence to corroborate it, especially if some of the other universes had no material component to it?Is a materialist based science construct capable of “learning about this reality?”BTW how can I do a quick quote without using "[quote]"

True but pointless. Archetypes may tell us something about human nature. They won't tell us much about nature's nature. I hope you won't be too surprised to find out that some of us couldn't care less about what Jung had to say.

Founder. In the sense that 1909 was a long time ago. Things change. 'Modern Psychology' is science rather than one man's crack pot beliefs about unverifiable nonsense. Then your god is a construct derived from our brains. My point was that you cannot talk about scientific proof. This has been pointed out several times on this thread. In research you tend to use people trained in the field (scientists) and stat boys to do the stats. No every one else is a 5th wheel. For the last time!You.
Can't.
Prove.
With.
Science. Word salad. There is no other science than materialist. "[qs]"

You cannot understand nature's nature without integrating it into your nature, doesnt ur neurones proceess nature to provide congition of natue...you may not give a damn about Jung, I don't give a damn about the arrogant Dawkins, but it would be folly to ingore him?Can someone help me where did I say I had a God...putting words in people mouth to justify an arguement reminds me of straw men I think I agreed with you, pointing out that science contributes to the evidence base that compels the mind to accept an assertion as trueNote the mind , a non physical entity as Dacarte suggested. ...mmmm lower the tone with nonsense ..ah at last the limits of science and its a big one, how can science even attempt to investigate something with no material component....or does it just make one up...or just deny that component does not exist...sounds like religion to me, Larni are u by any chance a closet believer?Edited by letchim, : No reason given.Edited by letchim, : No reason given.