From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:11:15 +1100, 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"   
      
      
   So everything was still without form and void, but at least you could   
   see it better.   
      
      
   >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.   
   >>    
      
   --    
   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)