From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 20/02/2026 1:25 pm, MarkE wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   The paragraph above was sloppy; to clarify and expand:   
      
   The process operative in either of these two options belongs in a   
   separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe   
   was caused.   
      
   Category A: *why* the universe is, or *who/what* caused the universe   
   Category B: processes/mechanisms as to *how* the universe was caused   
      
   How useful this is is a another question. Establishing working   
   definitions is a necessary first step.   
      
   >   
   > 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).   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)