From: 69jpil69@gmail.com   
      
   On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
      
   >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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)