From: me22over7@gmail.com   
      
   On 26/02/2026 8:47 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
   Are you suggesting that creationists generally "look for evidence for a   
   god, fail to find it, but still want a gap to be the bit where god gets   
   involved", and so ignore/deny/misinterpret the evidence?   
      
   Genuine question, intended to clarify and/or move us past a simplistic   
   characterisation.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   Are you suggesting that creationists' belief is generally the result of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)