From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 24/02/2026 7:46 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   So much more than semantics. Establishing definitions with some   
   precision and then consistently building on them is critical. Not doing   
   so is a primary cause of talking past one another or in circles.   
      
   >>   
   >> 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.   
   >   
      
   A legitimate criticism is the god-of-the-gaps - overplaying today's gaps   
   ahead of tomorrow's science. My position is to ask are there gaps that   
   are doing the opposite - growing in magnitude as science progresses.   
   I've pressed OoL here (for example) as a strong candidate for that.   
      
   There are two postures one can take:   
      
   1. The evidence is sufficiently complex, substantial and unresolved to   
   support legitimate arguments for both materialism and theism.   
      
   2. That is not the case, and therefore one's opponents must be "stupid,   
   ignorant, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."   
   (Dawkins)   
      
   I believe 1. And you?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)