From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 3 Jan 2026 10:17:00 -0800, John Harshman   
    wrote:   
      
   >On 1/3/26 6:24 AM, Martin Harran wrote:   
   >> On Wed, 31 Dec 2025 13:22:06 -0600, sticks    
   >> wrote:   
   >>    
   >> [...]   
   >>    
      
   [...]   
      
   >> I don't have any issue with the logic regarding their first claim, it   
   >> is essentially the 'First Cause' argument that goes back to at least   
   >> Aristotle and was taken up by Thomas Aquinas. I don't think   
   >> materialists have been able to put up any substantive argument against   
   >> this; all they seem to have to offer is that of infinite regression   
   >> which I do not regard as a valid argument - not least when scientists   
   >> accept an end to regression other areas. For example, keeping dividing   
   >> any piece of material into two is a form of potentially infinite   
   >> regression but scientists recognise that you get to a point where the   
   >> piece of material gets to the smallest possible size - the Planck   
   >> constant - and can be divided no further; i.e. the regression is not   
   >> infinite and has a starting point. I don't see dividing a piece of   
   >> material should be excluded from infinite regression but First Cause   
   >> should not.   
   >   
   >I don't see any reason why lack of infinite regression in one thing    
   >should require us to reject it in all things. And there are other    
   >options: 1) a multiverse that had a beginning and that gave rise to this    
   >universe; 2) a causeless beginning of the universe. There may be others.   
   >   
   >> Where I do have an issue is getting from that First Cause to the God I   
   >> and other Christians believe in - a personal God with whom we can   
   >> interact.   
   >   
   >Or, perhaps, anything we would call a god. Anyway, an "uncaused cause"    
   >seem merely a rhetorical device to get rid of infinite regress without    
   >noticing that it substitutes one infinity for another.   
      
      
   Exactly.  It's bizarre how Harran claims materialists haven't put any   
   substantive argument against First Cause, when in fact First Cause is   
   a completely irrational line of reasoning, to presume its First Cause   
   is uncaused, while at the same time rejecting a material uncaused   
   cause.   
      
   [...]   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)