From: admin@127.0.0.1   
      
   On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:33:16 +1100   
   MarkE  wrote:   
      
   > On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > As I've asked Vincent: Reality is either theism or not ("not" being   
   > materialism, atheism, deism, pantheism etc). You seem to reject theism   
   > as a *possibility* - why is that?   
      
   Last go; religion and science are asking different questions; it's no good   
   looking for evidence for a god, failing to find it, but still wanting a gap   
   to be the bit where god gets involved.   
      
   As I said before, if you find that having a god gives you some   
   comfort, then it works for you. Just don't expect it to manifest itself   
   any time soon.   
      
      
   >   
   > >   
   > > Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the   
   > > laryngeal nerve that way?   
   > >   
   >   
   I see you want a god to do some things, but not be responsible for others.   
      
   --   
   Bah, and indeed Humbug.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)