From: me22over7@gmail.com
On 18/02/2026 8:24 pm, jillery wrote:
> 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.
>
Define "explain".
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
