From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)