From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 22:22:03 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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".   
      
      
   Really?  Do you suppose my definition is any different than yours? As   
   for me, I like Oxford Languages:   
   *****************************************   
   explain: verb   
      
   1. make (an idea, situation, or problem) clear to someone by   
   describing it in more detail or revealing relevant facts or ideas.   
      
   2. account for (an action or event) by giving a reason as excuse or   
   justification.   
      
   3. be the cause of or motivating factor for.   
   ******************************************   
      
   I further stipulate for completeness that "explanations" are whatever   
   provide 1,2, or 3.   
      
   With that in mind, while 2 and 3 arguably provide linguistic "why"   
   explanations, doing so would be fiat assertions and so don't inform   
   First Cause lines of reasoning.   
      
   --    
   To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)