From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how" contributes   
   > here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And "non-material" or   
   > "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of course that doesn't   
   > lessen its validity, but you haven't established that it has any   
   > validity either.   
      
   Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually   
   exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,   
   *what* caused the universe):   
      
   1. The action of a non-material* person**   
   2. Everything else   
      
   The process used in either category is a separate category of options,   
   namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.   
      
   Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?   
      
   * Existing separate to and not constrained by this:   
      
   "In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism holding   
   that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that all things,   
   including mind and consciousness, arise from material interactions and   
   depend on physical processes, including those of the human brain and   
   nervous system. It contrasts with monistic idealism, which treats   
   consciousness as fundamental, and is related to naturalism, the view   
   that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, and to   
   physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical."   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism   
      
   ** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason,   
   morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person   
      
   >   
   > I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, or   
   > to find any evidence for or against it.   
   >   
   > Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head:   
   >   
   > 2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.   
   >   
   > 2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or beings)   
   > evolving in one and then creating the next.   
   >   
   > 2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe in   
   > the far future and going back in time to create it.   
   >   
   > One could do the same for various versions of 1.   
   >   
   >>>> 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?   
   >   
   > Again, 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)