From: admin@127.0.0.1
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:54:35 +1100
MarkE wrote:
> 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?
>
As you give me a binary choice, I'll have to plump for 2. I guess
'ignorant', but it's clear 'there's none so blind as those that will not
see'.
from 1) yes, evidence is complex, and simply asking for a god to wave a
wand at various convenient times doesn't help resolve anything, IMO.
Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the
laryngeal nerve that way?
--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
