From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/17/26 4:23 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.   
   >   
   > No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by fiat.   
   > It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.   
      
   Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my   
   suggestion; happy to refine it.   
      
   The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?   
      
   There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:   
      
   1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material agency   
      
   "How" options include:   
      
   1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum   
   vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure   
      
   1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe   
      
   2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving   
   action by non-material agency   
      
   "How" options include:   
      
   2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"   
      
   2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality   
      
   Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and   
   *How* did the universe come to be?   
      
   To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at least   
   not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise that   
   here we are talking why and not how.   
      
   You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens   
   its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"   
   because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.   
      
      
   >   
   >> This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to   
   >> the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms   
   >> within the universe.   
   >   
   > Why?   
   >   
   >> A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there   
   >> something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).   
   >   
   > It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by saying   
   > it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because, so there.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)