From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 20/02/2026 3:22 pm, John Harshman wrote:   
   > On 2/19/26 6:25 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.   
   >>   
   >> Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?   
   >   
   > Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other possible   
   > things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no distinction   
   > between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s.   
      
   What tells us that "how" has no part in "why" option 1? It's the howls   
   of protest that "an appeal to God explains nothing".   
      
   To which my response is, yes, that is true insofar as there is no "how"   
   in, for example, "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was   
   light." It's all "why/what".   
      
   Your assertion that 'Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s'   
   misunderstands 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   
   >   
   > I think you should mean energy when you say matter. Photons aren't   
   > matter. Bond energy isn't matter. And so on. Of course we have no idea   
   > from this what "non-material" means, only one thing it doesn't mean.   
   >   
   >> ** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason,   
   >> morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"   
   >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person   
   >   
   > So none of these attributes is necessary or sufficient, and we have no   
   > idea what other attributes could be on the list?   
   >   
   >>> I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it,   
   >>> or to find any evidence for or against it.   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)