From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 23:44:17 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >On 21/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:   
   >> On 2/20/26 2:14 AM, MarkE wrote:   
   >>> 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.   
   >>    
   >> Well, somebody is misunderstanding something, that much is clear.    
   >> Another thing that's clear is that you can spend a lot of words to say    
   >> very little.   
   >   
   >In the course of this conversation you have raised some legitimate    
   >objections and need for refinements. Great. I've responded to these with    
   >care, to arrive at a definition/distinction with some merit.   
      
      
   While you're patting yourself on the back, you might want to actually   
   add some merit to your definition/distinction.  I'm still waiting for   
   you to identify how your "why" actually answers/explains anything.  To   
   say your uncaused cause created the universe explains exactly what?   
   You don't say.  It's as if you're implying it's the nature of uncaused   
   causes to create universes.  If so, how do you know that?  How many   
   uncaused causes are you acquainted with?   
      
      
   >But you consistently refuse to concede virtually anything at all,    
   >regardless. And so now as you've run out of arguments, you evade by    
   >switching to insults.   
   >   
   >Your MO here. Pity.   
   >   
   >>    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)