home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   talk.origins      Evolution versus creationism (sometimes      142,579 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 142,517 of 142,579   
   sticks to MarkE   
   Re: Hossenfelder, Tour, Benner   
   17 Feb 26 19:29:41   
   
   From: wolverine01@charter.net   
      
   On 2/17/2026 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   > On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >> On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:   
   >>> On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:   
   >>>> "aseity"?   
   >>>   
   >>> https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity   
   >>>   
   >> Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain   
   > is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is   
   > effectively no explanation.   
   >   
   > This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to   
   > the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms   
   > within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists   
   > (e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws   
   > exist).   
      
   The thing I was trying to point out is that a being with aseity did not   
   have the need to do any of this.  He wouldn't have NEEDED us for   
   anything.  I thought this was fairly clear when I wrote this:   
      
   "He wouldn't have done this because he needed to.  So you ask yourself why."   
      
   This is all part of what I think a rational person would have to do if   
   the "WHY" question is asked, which is something that surely must happen   
   if, like me, you decide for yourself something other than materialistic   
   means was involved.  For example, many people have chosen to use the God   
   could not be real if he allowed this much pain and suffering in the   
   world.  My father, unfortunately, went to his grave with this belief.   
   It still haunts me since I can address this question much better I   
   believe now.  I failed him.   
      
   In simpler words, why would a God who had no need for shitheads like us   
   humans bother doing all this?  What religions or beliefs have a God like   
   this?   
      
      
   --   
   Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca