Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Astreja]

Your only true recourse is to say "He was the world's best guesser" or "He had a great imagination".

Mike, you forgot these two possibilities:

"...or the embryology passage was plagiarized from preexisting medical works, including the work of the Greek physician Galen, and inserted into the text by the imams who wrote the Qur'an."

"...or one of his wives had a miscarriage, and he thought the embryo looked like a leech."

Because it *does* look a bit like a leech. I know, because I've seen one. This is not uncommon knowledge that could only have come from a god; it is directly observable.

 

[Aridas]

You are claiming science cannot, but you have not given any examples of why the examples I gave are not something science can agree with. These subjective observations I have called absolutes can be established by scientific method.

Science is a method involving measurement of the physical and thus is able to establish with certainty that I exist, that I am conscious and that I am living on a planet in a physical universe.

What has philosophy got to do with that?

Right. In short, you don't understand the philosophy that underlays science, nor the inferential nature of how evidence works in science, just to begin with. Going beyond that, saying things like "I am consciousness" is remarkably unscientific from the start and other areas of philosophy that actually deal with questions like that are what you're trying to claim are science.

No I am not basically doing any such thing. Why divert to 'the color purple'?

The color bit was an analogy. Is it that difficult to recognize an analogy?

Why did you decide to place the word 'probably' into this? Probably is not certainly. Your comment was not on my comment but on a version of it which you yourself created.

I apologize. I included an acknowledgement to the inherent uncertainty in all claims of fact, which, you, obviously, find unwarranted, despite depending on such for other arguments of yours.

I said:

If any idea turns out to be true, it becomes fact. It need no longer be considered an 'idea'.

You retort:

If an idea turns out to probably be true, it is no less an idea than it was before it was found to probably be true.​

[

Your retort is not aligned with my statement. You had to reword my statement so that it would fit your retort. Rewording my statement make it your statement. My statement remains unanswered.

You realize that this is remarkably sad as an objection? Very well, then. "If any idea turns out to be true, it is no less an idea than it was before it was found to be true." Happy? What you're doing is claiming that something in a subset is not part of the whole set because it's part of the subset.

According to what or who?

Directly speaking, me, as the person who actually understood what I was saying. Still, if you actually wished to actually dispute my position, maybe you could explain how "the nature of hobbies" addresses in any meaningful way -

There's plenty to be curious about, speculate on, and seek data about, even when one accepts numerous things to be true for useful purposes. The efforts tend to be far more directed towards learning more useful information, in that case, no less.

To me, at very, very best, it's an ambiguous response that doesn't actually say anything, which leaves it meaningless and thus is irrelevant. Any less than that, it's simply completely irrelevant.

What we have to do or don't have to do is not a choice for many children. Once we pass that state as individuals then we can question what we have been taught, if we have not already abdicated that power in exchange for more of the same from those we learn are our teachers.

In relation to practical purposes, (you do not give example of these practical purposes) not knowing something to be true but accepting them as true anyway, is the symptom of belief.

As I actually did refer to, language itself can be used as an example, especially early on before one has much or anything to build upon to learn more.

Yet you still don't give any examples along with your statements. I have already said what I know. I gave examples. Use those examples to justify your statement here as to why they cannot be known as absolutes.
Why am I assuming these things to be absolutes?

Do you really need me to point out other possibilities for what could be going on, even if they would be untestable, unfalsifiable, and that we would have no reason to accept them, regardless? Either way, all of our knowledge is fundamentally based on assumptions, including the interpretations of the evidence that's able to be obtained through science.

If you point out the possibility that we don't actually exist in a physical universe as an argument against my absolute claim that we do, you are correct.

Science cannot determine for us in any absolute way, and is therefore not useful for that purpose.
I cannot absolutely claim that I exist only in this universe, due to possibilities which cannot be measured. Scientific method is only useful in relation to the physical universe which we cannot absolutely say exists at all, but it appears to exist and can be measured, but it all might not really exist.

Therefore, the statement "God does not exist" is not a statement of science.

Because it is an absolute statement.

Well done, for this part, then, for understanding the point, even if you did still seem to have issues with this even in the earlier parts of your post.

 

[punshhh]

This is just nonsense. If philosophers take it seriously, then they are no longer engaged in the pursuit of knowledge, and are just jabbering surreal poetry of no consequence.

So philosophers can go stuff themselves now, nice.

Let me educate, philosophical knowledge is that which can rationally be said and cannot be said about the existence we find ourselves in.

There now, it's simple and no science was practiced in improving your knowledge.

A baby is nothing but perception. All it knows is sensation. You are claiming that because of that first experience, we can never know objective reality. I call that bs. Your faulty logic is a consequence of your entertaining this academic bs.

Correction, a baby is a genetically programmed organism from birth. I am claiming that objective reality is not our primary reference to our existence and as such may be contingent on our primary reference.

All is explained!

I am fully aware of the point you are making. Unfortunately a description of the physical universe does not address our origin, or beliefs and is irrelevant to this thread.

 

[devnull]

mikeb, why do we only discover the meaning of the Quran after science has confirmed the reality?

 

[Tassman]

….actually…you have this completely backwards. Epistemology is exclusively the realm of philosophy. Science….in case it has escaped your withering attention….is a function of knowing. Knowing is not a function of science. Science is a model….it is not the thing in itself. The model occurs through the thing we call understanding. There is no science of understanding. As was explicitly stated above….science has not got a clue how our consciousness is created. What we have…is philosophy. Philosophy delineates the paths, patterns, and boundaries of the application we call science…not the other way around.

No, you are wrong. Philosophy has no means of acquiring new knowledge - it can only play around with existing knowledge. Certainly, philosophy can be viewed as the glue which ensures self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference in science. But it cannot generate new truths about nature. It can do no more than reformulate the truths verified by science’s models, theories and laws. Only science can acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence by using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories - theories that make testable predictions.

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

No, you are wrong. Philosophy has no means of acquiring new knowledge - it can only play around with existing knowledge. Certainly, philosophy can be viewed as the glue which ensures self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference in science. But it cannot generate new truths about nature. It can do no more than reformulate the truths verified by science’s models, theories and laws. Only science can acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence by using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories - theories that make testable predictions.

I always love those 'science can't....' statements. One day one will be followed up with 'and religion/philosophy can, here's the solution and associated working out as you can see its quite rigourous.'

One day.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

mikeb, why do we only discover the meaning of the Quran after science has confirmed the reality?

Like I said, the Quran has "always meant" what we now know to be true, no matter when now happens to be.

 

[RayG]

Let me educate, philosophical knowledge is that which can rationally be said and cannot be said about the existence we find ourselves in.

So that I can clearly understand what you mean by 'philosophical knowledge', can you provide some examples?

RayG

 

[Tassman]

So philosophers can go stuff themselves now, nice.

Let me educate, philosophical knowledge is that which can rationally be said and cannot be said about the existence we find ourselves in.
There now, it's simple and no science was practiced in improving your knowledge.

Philosophy is dependent on verified knowledge provided by science to formulate its premises. Without such knowledge philosophy cannot arrive at a true conclusion – no matter how valid the argument. This is evidenced by Aristotle who operated on the erroneous premise that all matter was made up of some combination of five elements, earth, air, fire, water and invisible aether. Consequently, nearly every argument and conclusion he made about physical science was wrong.

Correction, a baby is a genetically programmed organism from birth. I am claiming that objective reality is not our primary reference to our existence and as such may be contingent on our primary reference.

It is. Objective reality is what’s sought whereas subjective reality is prone to delusion and confirmation bias.

I am fully aware of the point you are making. Unfortunately a description of the physical universe does not address our origin, or beliefs and is irrelevant to this thread.

Science is in a better position than philosophy to do so and has done so to an ever increasing extent.

 

[asydhouse]

So philosophers can go stuff themselves now, nice.

Let me educate, philosophical knowledge is that which can rationally be said and cannot be said about the existence we find ourselves in.

There now, it's simple and no science was practiced in improving your knowledge.
Correction, a baby is a genetically programmed organism from birth. I am claiming that objective reality is not our primary reference to our existence and as such may be contingent on our primary reference.

I am fully aware of the point you are making. Unfortunately a description of the physical universe does not address our origin, or beliefs and is irrelevant to this thread.

Your words: "philosophical knowledge is that which can rationally be said and cannot be said about the existence we find ourselves in."

That says everything and nothing. It's extremely poorly expressed. I would think that a philosopher should first be able to grasp English composition before embarking on trying to form a joined-up-thinking project like creating a logically self-consistent framework of thought.

Frankly, even if such a framework of thought is self-consistent, if it doesn't connect to manifest reality, it's just so much self-indulgent mind games. Claiming pure thought structures to be "knowledge" is the core of my objection… perhaps my only objection… to your espousal of "philosophy" as the primary (and sufficient) method of arriving at the truth of our existence as part of this universe. So yes, solipsists who adorn themselves with the mantle of "the philosopher" can go stuff themselves into the pit from which they fail to spring!

I am not intending to belittle philosophy as an endeavour, nor to belittle philosophers in general. Just the ones who can seriously claim that their "philosophising" has led them to as ridiculous a position as that the mind exists a priori, and that the physical universe could be generated by that nonphysical abstract we have called "the mind".

As to primary reference: Science is suggesting that this "primary reference" you privilege is in fact literally an afterthought: It seems as though our sense of self is a fictional construct bolted on the top of a whole bunch of subsystems which really run the show, and the unifying fiction of a "self" is just a mechanism for the symphony of actions and reactions to unify its presence as an "experiencing mind" with the delusion of free will and autonomy.

Everything that comes into your system is put together in your brain and presented as the sensorium you take to be prime experience. So any and all inputs, whether "natural" through our bodily senses, or via extended instrumentation as with the tools we build to enhance our senses (or to provide us with new senses), they are all feeding an interpretive mechanism that occurs in the brain.

I can see that you will run with that as support for your "primary awareness" as the only valid reality, whereas to me that says that our whole subjective reality is a construct in our brains, so it behoves us to pay attention to the external reality of the universe in order to establish an actualising framework for our inner awareness to properly connect to the external reality.

I take all the evidence of the physical giving rise to the mental and conclude that the direction of movement is from physical to consciousness. You take a supposedly logical self-consistent framework of thought and convince yourself that it's evidence for the a priori existence of "mind" which gives rise to the physical universe. I call that insanity.

As to your final sentence above: You are completely and obviously wrong. The subject of this thread, because of the disingenuous OP which introduced these concerns about the origin of the world, is indeed (in part) about how we got here. This discussion is directly related to what we mean when we say we have "beliefs". My position is that anything disconnected from the physical process of the universe does not in fact exist in any meaningful sense.

Ideas only have power when they interact with the physical. You cannot communicate an idea except by using physical means to bridge the gap between minds. You cannot have an idea without a brain, or a consciousness supported (generated) by a physical substrate.

People with your tendency of thought tend to cite maths as an abstract idea which underlies the physical universe. But I think that idea is a mistaken understanding of what maths is.

I posted this following statement in another thread just the other day, but no one has picked up on it in that thread, so I'm going to finish here by quoting myself:

"'Maths' describe the world. Maths is a language (or actually a collection of languages) invented by humans to describe situations and processes, and the outcomes of process, which are simply the ongoing dynamic 'result' from moment to moment that the universe is playing out.

The fact that this logical language that we have developed (from abstracting aspects of the universal process into a systematic language) turns out to have ramifications which then reveal further abstract ways of interacting with the processes of the universe (as with the correlation between geometry and algebra, which allowed imaginary numbers to play a role in understanding quantum physics etc) is in no way proof that 'maths' (as a nonphysical pre-existing or ur-strata of reality) actually has any meaningful presence in the actual universe.

'Maths' does not exist apart from the physical working out of the universal process. The same as with 'consciousness', maths depends on the physical universe to exist at all.

The New Age mystic insists that 'consciousness' and 'maths' exist prior to the coming into existence of the physical universe, even that those two abstractions (which our minds have invented [through the natural manifestations of the physical processes involved in generating our minds]) are the agents which have brought into being the physical universe. That's simply magical thinking, and as arse about face as thinking the sun circles the stationary earth."

I rest my case. A happy Yuletide to all. Syd

 

[Arnold Martin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZiXC8Yh4T0

I have watched most of the video (thanks) ..... among other things it talks about the center of the universe (there is no center)

One analogy is to compare it to a balloon with dots on it , as the balloon expands the dots move apart equally

That begs the question .... is not the center of the balloon the center (starting point of expanding universe) ?

No they say .... because the center of the balloon does not correspond to anything physical.

However ... to me the original topic was the universe , and certainly the stars and planets are physical so that explaination does not work for me

What am I missing?

Thanks

 

[Brian-M]

What am I missing?

You're missing the fact that the surface of the balloon represents the topology of a two-dimensional universe. The center of the balloon exists outside that two-dimensional universe... there is nowhere on the surface that could be said to be the center. As far as any two-dimensional inhabitants of that universe are concerned, their universe has no center.

Now think of our universe as being a three-dimensional surface on a four-dimensional sphere. The center of that hypothetical hypersphere exists outside of our universe, so the universe as we know it has no center.

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Unfortunately a description of the physical universe does not address our origin, or beliefs and is irrelevant to this thread.

The mind is contingent on the physical brain. Damage the brain and the mind is impaired. We can observe a mind arising from physical substance, but we've never observed matter arising from thought. Why do you suppose that is?

 

[John Jones]

You are claiming science cannot, but you have not given any examples of why the examples I gave are not something science can agree with. [...]

Why are you still carrying-on about this?

Science is a discipline of which you are admittedly ignorant. Why do you rant at tedious length about a subject you don't understand?

I have offered you three classic texts that you may use to edify yourself. One is The Logic of Scientific Discovery by Karl Popper. The other two are The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and The Copernican Revolution, both by Thomas Kuhn.

You have read none of these. You refuse to avail yourself of contemporary insight and erudition.

Why should anyone regard your opinions as anything other than ridiculous and contemptible?

 

[annnnoid]

.

Do you have anything useful to derive from your ungrammatical reference to "ontology's"? For your information, this bit of solipsistic special pleading is tantamount to proclaiming that your dreams take precedence over the physics of the world which provide the venue for your dreams to occur.

I look at that situation, see the rock sliding inexorably over the ridge above your sleeping head, and silently wish you luck with that.

(Absolute? Only you brought that in.)

…would that be the physics which Feynman concluded ultimately tell us nothing about how things actually work…or the science which has yet to come up with the faintest idea of why people dream…or the science which has yet to come up with the faintest idea of how the brain creates dreams.

Not to mention that we don’t live in what you disingenuously refer to as ‘the physics of the world’. We humans are a function of human truth…not algebra and algorithms. And yes…human truth unconditionally takes precedence over whatever it is that you may or may not think you mean by ‘physics of the world’.

.
We do know however that if that rock crushes your head, you are no longer going to exist.

Ooooh…how clever!

Actually….’we’ don’t know that. “We’ don’t know what ‘knowing’ is, we do not yet have anything remotely resembling a definitive understanding of what a ‘you’ is, nor what ‘existence’ is. What ‘we’ can say is that…provisionally…a dead individual is no longer part of our conventional / immediate frame of reference.

That’s….it!

.
let me finish that sentence for you: "… but we do know that a human can only exist currently with the support of a living physical brain."

Let me finish that sentence for you….”…but we do know that we don’t know what a human being actually is nor how a brain creates one nor do we actually know that a human being cannot exist apart from a body…not to mention that there is a great deal of evidence that implicates some very unusual extra-corporeal realities that science currently has absolutely zero ability to explicitly adjudicate.”

.
Quoting Feynman in no way bolsters or elucidates your argument. My claim that "all is explained" was in response to the admission by punnnsh that he bases his embrace of the notion that consciousness comes before the brain exists on this unsupported bit of "philosophy", as if philosophy has any kind of validity beyond self-consistency.

…and how…explicitly and precisely…does philosophy achieve this consistency?

.
His reliance on philosophy to give his notions ground is where he goes wrong. Just because you can compose an argument does not ensure that the argument correlates to reality as manifested by the actual universe. Science is that bridge, and punnnsh privileges philosophy over science. Ask any physicist, even a "theoretical physicist", and they will tell you that experimental physics always takes precedence over theoretical physics.

….ask any competent human being and they will tell you that human truth takes precedence over science…unconditionally.

.
Your contempt for physics is noted. We actually have some pretty sound ideas, and detailed models, of "what this universe is, how it works" if not where it comes from… Same with consciousness. Your refusal of those models and discoveries does not give your totally unsupported assertions any more credibility.

My contempt for physics? What pompous garbage. I have a professor of genetics in my family, a professor of computer science, and a professor of physics (at Cambridge no less). I am in awe of physics. I am in far greater awe of the human reality that creates and explores it, and even greater awe of the mystery of the universe that creates that.

So Feynman was wrong? Why…because you say so?

…but somehow it’s my credibility that is lacking???

As for where consciousness comes from…there does not yet exist any consensus about what consciousness even is (…I could provide a few million links as evidence but all anyone need do is scan the multitude of JREF threads on the subject to confirm the position)…and it was no less than a director of one of the leading institute’s of cognitive neuroscience who insisted that we have no idea how the brain creates ‘it’.

…your argument is comprised of…’I say so.’

…that nagging credibility issue returns.

.
No, it's called anecdotal ravings of ignorant and misinformed, highly suggestible people in vulnerable states of mental distress or illness, or poetic transports of mind in the throes of faulty perception and credulous priming of their conceptual frameworks being misled by their preconceptions and the inherent limitations of human psychology.

Skeptic insecurities are never more glaringly displayed than when it comes to these issues. Science has absolutely no means of directly adjudicating human experience (or often even indirectly). There are also countless reports of perfectly sane and healthy people experiencing anomalous spiritual conditions.

….and yet….somehow it is perfectly reasonable to proclaim that ‘science’ has resolved the issue (an issue that science has precisely zero ability to directly adjudicate). That the weight of evidence proves that they are nothing but the result of neurosis or psychosis (despite that fact that there are countless examples of perfectly sane, balanced, and healthy people reporting these experiences).

Where is the science? Where is the objective, balanced investigation? All I see is insecurity, bias, and ignorance. Laughable…considering how often such invective is cast at the religious of the world.

.
What my experience has determined is that people are prone to confirmation bias and our brains are not perfect machines but are prone to delighting us with unscheduled outages and skirmishes of access to unusual moments of rewiring.

Doubtless your ‘experience’ is definitive….but hang on a sec…have you considered the possibility that maybe…just maybe…you do not reside at the apex of human evolution?!?!?!?!?

.
Science is not a model, nor a collection of facts. Science is a process, specifically developed to counter the human tendency to seek out confirmation of our own delusions.

Using the process of science, we build a model. It is through checking the model against reality as presented by the universe that we know our model has any validity at all.

Thinking alone won't do it.

…and science will ultimately avail you nothing upon the road to human truth. Is there such a thing? Yes…no? Does it sound like it might be important? Science won’t answer those questions.

Your words: "philosophical knowledge is that which can rationally be said and cannot be said about the existence we find ourselves in."

(snip)

The New Age mystic insists that 'consciousness' and 'maths' exist prior to the coming into existence of the physical universe, even that those two abstractions (which our minds have invented [through the natural manifestations of the physical processes involved in generating our minds]) are the agents which have brought into being the physical universe. That's simply magical thinking, and as arse about face as thinking the sun circles the stationary earth."

I rest my case. A happy Yuletide to all. Syd

You ‘rest your case! So should we call the Nobel committee?

Define ‘physical’. Define ‘manifest reality’. Define ‘External reality’ (preferably using explicit ‘joined-up-thinking-projects’)

That the mind may exist a priori is not ridiculous…it is simply complex to the point of incomprehensible. What is ridiculous…is that puny creatures who occupy a fragment of a fraction of the ultimate dimensions of this universe presume to entertain the conceit that they are aware of the dimensions of their ignorance….especially when there is so much evidence to the contrary.

…but this one deserves special attention:

As to primary reference: Science is suggesting that this "primary reference" you privilege is in fact literally an afterthought: It seems as though our sense of self is a fictional construct bolted on the top of a whole bunch of subsystems which really run the show, and the unifying fiction of a "self" is just a mechanism for the symphony of actions and reactions to unify its presence as an "experiencing mind" with the delusion of free will and autonomy.

…so much could be said about just how torturously vile and vapid this statement is (not to mention unsupported and arbitrary). An ‘afterthought’, a ‘fictional construct’, ‘just this or that’, a ‘delusion’ It can be quite effectively summed up by the following quote:

“Scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study.”

Not to mention that this ‘primary reference’ that you so casually dismiss remains the only ontology that can claim anything like absolute status…according to the only means we have of adjudicating the issue. Philosophy.

…and another gem:

My position is that anything disconnected from the physical process of the universe does not in fact exist in any meaningful sense.

Well duh!!! Since we have no ability to comprehensively define ‘physical’…we’ll just assume it means everything that exists. So what you’re saying…is something that doesn’t exist…doesn’t exist. Genius! Your leaps into the metaphysical stratosphere border on poetry. Squirmy science at best.

I always find laughable these desperate (but entertaining) attempts by skeptics to avoid any implication or suggestion of unknown mysteries (especially considering that we are literally up to our eyeballs in them). Mathematics often percolates to the top of that list. So math doesn’t exist …
….tell that to this flower!

http://bach21.edublogs.org/files/2011/08/fib3_1-1bacf9j.jpg

No, you are wrong. Philosophy has no means of acquiring new knowledge - it can only play around with existing knowledge. Certainly, philosophy can be viewed as the glue which ensures self-consistency, and help prevent errors of false inference in science. But it cannot generate new truths about nature. It can do no more than reformulate the truths verified by science’s models, theories and laws. Only science can acquire new knowledge based upon physical evidence by using observations, hypotheses and deductions to develop testable, falsifiable theories - theories that make testable predictions.

And through what medium does any scientist comprehend these models, theories, and laws? It is called meaning. Science has no understanding of it. It is philosophy, exclusively, that (explicitly) delineates and explores it.

In other words, you don't know, therefore God. However, you don't know everything about God either. Just be honest and admit what you don't know.

…in other words…it’s ok to resort to typical skeptic strawman tactics. Where did I say I have your answer? Where did I say I know the answer? …and most laughable of all… where did I say I know everything about God? I barely know anything about myself and would consider it an accomplishment to achieve Socrates insight when he said: ‘All I know is that I know nothing!’

 

[Frozenwolf150]

…in other words…it’s ok to resort to typical skeptic strawman tactics. Where did I say I have your answer? Where did I say I know the answer? …and most laughable of all… where did I say I know everything about God? I barely know anything about myself and would consider it an accomplishment to achieve Socrates insight when he said: ‘All I know is that I know nothing!’

You claimed to have the answer here:

….as for evidence of something called “God”…there is a great deal…especially given that it is our own experience that has primary ontological status…and there are a great many people throughout history who have explicitly insisted that they have experienced what they call ‘God’ with, in, and through this very experience.

You are setting up a false dichotomy, rejecting science so that you can weasel God in as your default conclusion. Your entire modus operandi seems to be set up for this very purpose. If only you'd expressed the same uncertainty towards evidence for God as you did towards the conclusions of science, I might take you seriously. As far as I'm concerned, your posts hurt my eyes, since you can't be bothered to properly punctuate your sentences or use proper grammar. Oh and by the way, ellipses aren't supposed to be used like that.

 

[Navigator]

You're missing the fact that the surface of the balloon represents the topology of a two-dimensional universe. The center of the balloon exists outside that two-dimensional universe... there is nowhere on the surface that could be said to be the center. As far as any two-dimensional inhabitants of that universe are concerned, their universe has no center.

Now think of our universe as being a three-dimensional surface on a four-dimensional sphere. The center of that hypothetical hypersphere exists outside of our universe, so the universe as we know it has no center.

If the physical universe is a product of the big bang, then wouldn't that event be 'the center of the universe'?

I know that there are models of the big bang and its effects that portray the universe propelling out in a funnel shape, as if it has comes from some point on a wall and is moving in one direction but I don;t see why it isn't more reasonable to see it as expanding out as a sphere from the event outwards from that explosion in every direction.

Which would signify that the big bang is the center point of that expansion...

ETA
The balloon analogy would have us see that the big bang is the opening of the balloon which is used to blow it the balloon up (thus the expansion) but wouldn't it be far more reasonable to think that the event is central - the balloon has no opening

 

[Tassman]

And through what medium does any scientist comprehend these models, theories, and laws? It is called meaning. Science has no understanding of it. It is philosophy, exclusively, that (explicitly)delineates and explores it.

Philosophy cannot. Philosophy is merely speculative guess-work based on existing knowledge. It has no mechanism whereby it can "delineate and explore" anything. For this you need science.

 

[Brian-M]

If the physical universe is a product of the big bang, then wouldn't that event be 'the center of the universe'?

That would make everywhere the center of the universe, because thee big bang was the expansion of everything.

I know that there are models of the big bang and its effects that portray the universe propelling out in a funnel shape, as if it has comes from some point on a wall and is moving in one direction

In those models, our 3D universe is being represented as a 2D disk-shape, and the third dimension is being used to represent the passage of time. It lets you see how rapidly the universe expanded.

but I don;t see why it isn't more reasonable to see it as expanding out as a sphere from the event outwards from that explosion in every direction.

The big-bang wasn't an explosion, just an expansion. The whole universe expanded, it wasn't something that happened at a specific location.

The balloon analogy would have us see that the big bang is the opening of the balloon which is used to blow it the balloon up (thus the expansion) but wouldn't it be far more reasonable to think that the event is central - the balloon has no opening

The opening of the balloon isn't supposed to be part of the analogy.

 

[Navigator]

The mind is contingent on the physical brain. Damage the brain and the mind is impaired. We can observe a mind arising from physical substance, but we've never observed matter arising from thought. Why do you suppose that is?

What have we observed matter arising from?