From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 19:29:41 -0600, sticks    
   wrote:   
      
   >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.   
      
      
   You failed your father in part because you didn't listen to what he   
   said.  I suspect your father meant pain and suffering built into the   
   world is incompatible with the Biblical god.   However, since you   
   accept the existence of deities, there's no good reason for you to   
   limit yourself to just that one.   
      
      
   >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?   
      
      
   Your questions presume that God exists, the fundamental flaw with all   
   First Cause lines of reasoning.   
      
      
   >--    
   >Science Doesn’t Support Darwin. Scientists Do   
      
      
   God doesn't support creation.  Creationists do.   
      
   --    
   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)