From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:13:52 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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*.   
      
      
   Everything your wrote above is completely incorrect.  The category   
   error is claiming First Cause hypotheses are *explanations*.  First   
   Cause hypotheses explain neither how nor why.  Their authors don't   
   even try to say how they explain anything at all.  All they do is   
   assert by fiat whatever they want to believe, just as you do above.   
      
   --    
   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)