From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 18/02/2026 2:30 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:23:15 +1100, 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).   
   >   
   >   
   > Incorrect.  A First Cause explains nothing when that First Cause is   
   > asserted by fiat.   
   >   
      
   Ironically, you're committing the category error described.   
      
   You're requiring the First Cause hypothesis to explain the *how* of the   
   universe. It explains the *why*.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)