From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 05:43:43 -0500   
   jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:   
      
   > On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE  wrote:   
   >   
   > >On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:   
   [Lots sipped]   
      
   > >> 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?   
   > >   
   > >My responses here are only to establish working definitions, even if   
   > >qualified and provisional. Specifically, between the categories of "how"   
   > >and "why/what". Even that has proven impossible for John.   
      
      
   > >   
   > >I invite you to summarise these definitions as presented, and express   
   > >your agreement or otherwise. That's a necessary next step to provide a   
   > >foundation for further discussion.   
   >   
   Semantics.   
   >   
   > Blatant evasion.  Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, I   
   > would say your working definitions are conversational non-starters.   
   Agreed.   
   >   
   > What's your problem with the Oxford definitions I cited?  They have   
   > the advantage of not including fiat assertions that can then be used   
   > to claim QED by definition.   
   >   
   > Once again, I invite you to take the necessary step to say how your   
   > uncaused cause answers "why" anything.   
   >   
   >   
   >    
   >   
   Thanks.   
      
   If MarkE wants a god to believe in, and it helps him, well, that's OK.   
      
   If he wants to convince us here that science has gaps in it, well,   
   I'm sure that's true, it's a never-ending quest.   
      
   But as RonO has repeatedly stated, it ain't a biblical god that could've   
   done it. A god lurking in the background, just waking up occasionally,   
   (such as prodding evolution in the pre-cambrian), yet giving   
   us (and all critters evolved from fish) a badly routed   
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recurrent_laryngeal_nerve   
   is not worthy of the label "ID", IMO.   
      
   To get back to 'how/why'; we can only hope to resolve 'how', 'why' is just   
   a human desire for completion. It is what it is.   
      
      
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)