Sorry, not quite G||del, Escher, Bach.
Sabine Hossenfelder is now well-known for her criticism of particle
physics as a field increasingly adrift from empirical constraint and
misled by mathematical beauty, claiming that pressures from tenure and
peers suppress critical self-assessment:
"No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles- physicists
"Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein -- and they should be" https://youtu.be/KiFYcuoK490?si=A6UDh87MclPXvhbp
"How I Became Particle PhysicistsrCO Enemy #1" https://youtu.be/XqoyTSAF5g0?si=8hU8LL4APv9fJytD
Truth or exaggeration? Possibly both. However, it may serve as a
reminder that science is subject to human frailty, error, and groupthink.
And yes, origin of life research comes to mind. It's not only James Tour
who is blowing the whistle. Over ten years ago Steven Benner published "Paradoxes in the Origin of Life"*, which identified these fundamental problems:
1. THE ASPHALT PARADOX. "An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, 'asphalts'."
2. THE WATER PARADOX. "This allows us to construct a paradox: RNA
requires water to function, but RNA cannot emerge in water, and does not persist in water without repair."
3. *The Information-Need Paradox.* "However, by any current theory, biopolymers that might plausibly support rCLreplication involving
replicable imperfectionsrCY (RIRI) evolution are too long to have arisen spontaneously from the amounts of building blocks that might plausibly (again by theory) have escaped asphaltic devolution in water.*
4. THE SINGLE BIOPOLYMER PARADOX. "Even if we can make biopolymers prebiotically, it is hard to imagine making two or three (DNA, RNA, proteins) at the same time."
5. THE PROBABILITY PARADOX. "However, experiments show that RNA
molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to arise
in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences."
Unlike Hossenfelder, Benner has an optimistic take: "...the concept of 'paradox' should not be daunting. We expect that (hope that?) most of
these paradoxes will be resolved by experiments that show that the
theories that generate them are incorrect, incomplete, or inapplicable
to particular molecular systems that just happen to have been present on early Earth. Others may be resolved because, like most exercises that
apply logic to the real world, their reasoning is imperfect."
My contention is that these paradoxes have only deepened since Benner
nailed them to the church door.
If you disagree, please show evidence to contrary, but be careful to
heed Benner's own warning:
"However, even if we accept the premise that the emergence of rCLbiologyrCY from 'chemistry' necessarily involves a lengthy pathway, we must
confront a bigger problem before we attempt to design experiments to re- create such a pathway in a laboratory. We are now 60 years into the
modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of
thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which 'molecules
that look like biology' might arise from 'molecules that do not look
like biology', find conditions where oligomers might form spontaneously
from those molecules, identify constraints on pre-metabolic cycles that might deliver those molecules without leaking material into the
complexity sometimes characterized as 'asphalt', or assemble ways to
create chiral compounds largely free from their enantiomers. For the
most part, these papers report 'success' in the sense that those papers define the term."
"And yet, the problem remains unsolved."
...
"Pure 'hypothesis-based research' will not help. Hypotheses cannot be
formed without a *theoretical [and experimental]* context, precisely
what is missing in the origins field."
____
* Paradoxes in the Origin of Life https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
On 2/8/2026 12:37 AM, MarkE wrote:
Sorry, not quite G||del, Escher, Bach.
Sabine Hossenfelder is now well-known for her criticism of particle physics as a field increasingly adrift from empirical constraint and misled by mathematical beauty, claiming that pressures from tenure and peers suppress critical self-assessment:
"No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is pointless" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles- physicists
"Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein -- and they should be" https://youtu.be/KiFYcuoK490?si=A6UDh87MclPXvhbp
"How I Became Particle PhysicistsrCO Enemy #1" https://youtu.be/XqoyTSAF5g0?si=8hU8LL4APv9fJytD
Truth or exaggeration? Possibly both. However, it may serve as a
reminder that science is subject to human frailty, error, and groupthink.
And yes, origin of life research comes to mind. It's not only James Tour who is blowing the whistle. Over ten years ago Steven Benner published "Paradoxes in the Origin of Life"*, which identified these fundamental problems:
1. THE ASPHALT PARADOX. "An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, 'asphalts'."
2. THE WATER PARADOX. "This allows us to construct a paradox: RNA
requires water to function, but RNA cannot emerge in water, and does not persist in water without repair."
3. *The Information-Need Paradox.* "However, by any current theory, biopolymers that might plausibly support rCLreplication involving replicable imperfectionsrCY (RIRI) evolution are too long to have arisen spontaneously from the amounts of building blocks that might plausibly (again by theory) have escaped asphaltic devolution in water.*
4. THE SINGLE BIOPOLYMER PARADOX. "Even if we can make biopolymers prebiotically, it is hard to imagine making two or three (DNA, RNA, proteins) at the same time."
5. THE PROBABILITY PARADOX. "However, experiments show that RNA
molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to arise
in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences."
Unlike Hossenfelder, Benner has an optimistic take: "...the concept of 'paradox' should not be daunting. We expect that (hope that?) most of these paradoxes will be resolved by experiments that show that the theories that generate them are incorrect, incomplete, or inapplicable
to particular molecular systems that just happen to have been present on early Earth. Others may be resolved because, like most exercises that apply logic to the real world, their reasoning is imperfect."
My contention is that these paradoxes have only deepened since Benner nailed them to the church door.
If you disagree, please show evidence to contrary, but be careful to
heed Benner's own warning:
"However, even if we accept the premise that the emergence of rCLbiologyrCY
from 'chemistry' necessarily involves a lengthy pathway, we must
confront a bigger problem before we attempt to design experiments to re- create such a pathway in a laboratory. We are now 60 years into the
modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of
thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which 'molecules that look like biology' might arise from 'molecules that do not look
like biology', find conditions where oligomers might form spontaneously from those molecules, identify constraints on pre-metabolic cycles that might deliver those molecules without leaking material into the
complexity sometimes characterized as 'asphalt', or assemble ways to create chiral compounds largely free from their enantiomers. For the
most part, these papers report 'success' in the sense that those papers define the term."
"And yet, the problem remains unsolved."
...
"Pure 'hypothesis-based research' will not help. Hypotheses cannot be formed without a *theoretical [and experimental]* context, precisely
what is missing in the origins field."
____
* Paradoxes in the Origin of Life https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
Denial is never going to do what you want it to do. The simple fact is
that no one knows how the origin of life got started. Ignorance is no reason to claim victory. The origin of life research is just not of
very much interest to scientists. As you seem to be pointing out about particle physics any results are just "so what?" The origin of life researchers do not even want to figure out how life arose on this
planet. All that they can hope to figure out is the most probable way
in which life may have started. This is not the actual way that life started on this planet. A ball of RNA and nucleotides may have been deposited by a comet into a clay substrate surrounding some type of old faithful geyser to kick start self replicating RNAs. We are never going
to know things like that.
What you and Tour have to face is that the god that fills the origin of
life gap is not the god described in the Bible, so it is senseless to
wallow in the denial in order to support your religious beliefs.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 11:33:53 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/2026 12:37 AM, MarkE wrote:Thank you for keeping it brief.
Sorry, not quite G||del, Escher, Bach.
Sabine Hossenfelder is now well-known for her criticism of particle
physics as a field increasingly adrift from empirical constraint and
misled by mathematical beauty, claiming that pressures from tenure and
peers suppress critical self-assessment:
"No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is >>> pointless"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles- >>> physicists
"Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein -- and they should be"
https://youtu.be/KiFYcuoK490?si=A6UDh87MclPXvhbp
"How I Became Particle PhysicistsrCO Enemy #1"
https://youtu.be/XqoyTSAF5g0?si=8hU8LL4APv9fJytD
Truth or exaggeration? Possibly both. However, it may serve as a
reminder that science is subject to human frailty, error, and groupthink. >>>
And yes, origin of life research comes to mind. It's not only James Tour >>> who is blowing the whistle. Over ten years ago Steven Benner published
"Paradoxes in the Origin of Life"*, which identified these fundamental
problems:
1. THE ASPHALT PARADOX. "An enormous amount of empirical data have
established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to
themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, 'asphalts'."
2. THE WATER PARADOX. "This allows us to construct a paradox: RNA
requires water to function, but RNA cannot emerge in water, and does not >>> persist in water without repair."
3. *The Information-Need Paradox.* "However, by any current theory,
biopolymers that might plausibly support rCLreplication involving
replicable imperfectionsrCY (RIRI) evolution are too long to have arisen >>> spontaneously from the amounts of building blocks that might plausibly
(again by theory) have escaped asphaltic devolution in water.*
4. THE SINGLE BIOPOLYMER PARADOX. "Even if we can make biopolymers
prebiotically, it is hard to imagine making two or three (DNA, RNA,
proteins) at the same time."
5. THE PROBABILITY PARADOX. "However, experiments show that RNA
molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to arise
in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences."
Unlike Hossenfelder, Benner has an optimistic take: "...the concept of
'paradox' should not be daunting. We expect that (hope that?) most of
these paradoxes will be resolved by experiments that show that the
theories that generate them are incorrect, incomplete, or inapplicable
to particular molecular systems that just happen to have been present on >>> early Earth. Others may be resolved because, like most exercises that
apply logic to the real world, their reasoning is imperfect."
My contention is that these paradoxes have only deepened since Benner
nailed them to the church door.
If you disagree, please show evidence to contrary, but be careful to
heed Benner's own warning:
"However, even if we accept the premise that the emergence of rCLbiologyrCY >>> from 'chemistry' necessarily involves a lengthy pathway, we must
confront a bigger problem before we attempt to design experiments to re- >>> create such a pathway in a laboratory. We are now 60 years into the
modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of
thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which 'molecules
that look like biology' might arise from 'molecules that do not look
like biology', find conditions where oligomers might form spontaneously
from those molecules, identify constraints on pre-metabolic cycles that
might deliver those molecules without leaking material into the
complexity sometimes characterized as 'asphalt', or assemble ways to
create chiral compounds largely free from their enantiomers. For the
most part, these papers report 'success' in the sense that those papers
define the term."
"And yet, the problem remains unsolved."
...
"Pure 'hypothesis-based research' will not help. Hypotheses cannot be
formed without a *theoretical [and experimental]* context, precisely
what is missing in the origins field."
____
* Paradoxes in the Origin of Life
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
Denial is never going to do what you want it to do. The simple fact is
that no one knows how the origin of life got started. Ignorance is no
reason to claim victory. The origin of life research is just not of
very much interest to scientists. As you seem to be pointing out about
particle physics any results are just "so what?" The origin of life
researchers do not even want to figure out how life arose on this
planet. All that they can hope to figure out is the most probable way
in which life may have started. This is not the actual way that life
started on this planet. A ball of RNA and nucleotides may have been
deposited by a comet into a clay substrate surrounding some type of old
faithful geyser to kick start self replicating RNAs. We are never going
to know things like that.
What you and Tour have to face is that the god that fills the origin of
life gap is not the god described in the Bible, so it is senseless to
wallow in the denial in order to support your religious beliefs.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need
for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago,
say Last Thursday.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 11:33:53 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/2026 12:37 AM, MarkE wrote:Thank you for keeping it brief.
Sorry, not quite G||del, Escher, Bach.
Sabine Hossenfelder is now well-known for her criticism of particle
physics as a field increasingly adrift from empirical constraint and
misled by mathematical beauty, claiming that pressures from tenure and
peers suppress critical self-assessment:
"No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new particles is >>> pointless"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-particles- >>> physicists
"Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein -- and they should be"
https://youtu.be/KiFYcuoK490?si=A6UDh87MclPXvhbp
"How I Became Particle PhysicistsrCO Enemy #1"
https://youtu.be/XqoyTSAF5g0?si=8hU8LL4APv9fJytD
Truth or exaggeration? Possibly both. However, it may serve as a
reminder that science is subject to human frailty, error, and groupthink. >>>
And yes, origin of life research comes to mind. It's not only James Tour >>> who is blowing the whistle. Over ten years ago Steven Benner published
"Paradoxes in the Origin of Life"*, which identified these fundamental
problems:
1. THE ASPHALT PARADOX. "An enormous amount of empirical data have
established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to
themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, 'asphalts'."
2. THE WATER PARADOX. "This allows us to construct a paradox: RNA
requires water to function, but RNA cannot emerge in water, and does not >>> persist in water without repair."
3. *The Information-Need Paradox.* "However, by any current theory,
biopolymers that might plausibly support rCLreplication involving
replicable imperfectionsrCY (RIRI) evolution are too long to have arisen >>> spontaneously from the amounts of building blocks that might plausibly
(again by theory) have escaped asphaltic devolution in water.*
4. THE SINGLE BIOPOLYMER PARADOX. "Even if we can make biopolymers
prebiotically, it is hard to imagine making two or three (DNA, RNA,
proteins) at the same time."
5. THE PROBABILITY PARADOX. "However, experiments show that RNA
molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to arise
in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences."
Unlike Hossenfelder, Benner has an optimistic take: "...the concept of
'paradox' should not be daunting. We expect that (hope that?) most of
these paradoxes will be resolved by experiments that show that the
theories that generate them are incorrect, incomplete, or inapplicable
to particular molecular systems that just happen to have been present on >>> early Earth. Others may be resolved because, like most exercises that
apply logic to the real world, their reasoning is imperfect."
My contention is that these paradoxes have only deepened since Benner
nailed them to the church door.
If you disagree, please show evidence to contrary, but be careful to
heed Benner's own warning:
"However, even if we accept the premise that the emergence of rCLbiologyrCY >>> from 'chemistry' necessarily involves a lengthy pathway, we must
confront a bigger problem before we attempt to design experiments to re- >>> create such a pathway in a laboratory. We are now 60 years into the
modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of
thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which 'molecules
that look like biology' might arise from 'molecules that do not look
like biology', find conditions where oligomers might form spontaneously
from those molecules, identify constraints on pre-metabolic cycles that
might deliver those molecules without leaking material into the
complexity sometimes characterized as 'asphalt', or assemble ways to
create chiral compounds largely free from their enantiomers. For the
most part, these papers report 'success' in the sense that those papers
define the term."
"And yet, the problem remains unsolved."
...
"Pure 'hypothesis-based research' will not help. Hypotheses cannot be
formed without a *theoretical [and experimental]* context, precisely
what is missing in the origins field."
____
* Paradoxes in the Origin of Life
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
Denial is never going to do what you want it to do. The simple fact is
that no one knows how the origin of life got started. Ignorance is no
reason to claim victory. The origin of life research is just not of
very much interest to scientists. As you seem to be pointing out about
particle physics any results are just "so what?" The origin of life
researchers do not even want to figure out how life arose on this
planet. All that they can hope to figure out is the most probable way
in which life may have started. This is not the actual way that life
started on this planet. A ball of RNA and nucleotides may have been
deposited by a comet into a clay substrate surrounding some type of old
faithful geyser to kick start self replicating RNAs. We are never going
to know things like that.
What you and Tour have to face is that the god that fills the origin of
life gap is not the god described in the Bible, so it is senseless to
wallow in the denial in order to support your religious beliefs.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need
for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago,
say Last Thursday.
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where,
well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need
for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago,
say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916u1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
oI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and >knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.o
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:That's a good example of how one's area of expertise doesn't inform
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and >winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and >knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
--God doesn't support creation. Creationists do.
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do
On 9/02/2026 8:14 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 11:33:53 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/2026 12:37 AM, MarkE wrote:Thank you for keeping it brief.
Sorry, not quite G||del, Escher, Bach.
Sabine Hossenfelder is now well-known for her criticism of particle
physics as a field increasingly adrift from empirical constraint and
misled by mathematical beauty, claiming that pressures from tenure and >>>> peers suppress critical self-assessment:
"No one in physics dares say so, but the race to invent new
particles is
pointless"
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/26/physics-
particles-
physicists
"Physicists are afraid of Eric Weinstein -- and they should be"
https://youtu.be/KiFYcuoK490?si=A6UDh87MclPXvhbp
"How I Became Particle PhysicistsrCO Enemy #1"
https://youtu.be/XqoyTSAF5g0?si=8hU8LL4APv9fJytD
Truth or exaggeration? Possibly both. However, it may serve as a
reminder that science is subject to human frailty, error, and
groupthink.
And yes, origin of life research comes to mind. It's not only James
Tour
who is blowing the whistle. Over ten years ago Steven Benner published >>>> "Paradoxes in the Origin of Life"*, which identified these fundamental >>>> problems:
1. THE ASPHALT PARADOX. "An enormous amount of empirical data have
established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to >>>> themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, 'asphalts'."
2. THE WATER PARADOX. "This allows us to construct a paradox: RNA
requires water to function, but RNA cannot emerge in water, and does
not
persist in water without repair."
3. *The Information-Need Paradox.* "However, by any current theory,
biopolymers that might plausibly support rCLreplication involving
replicable imperfectionsrCY (RIRI) evolution are too long to have arisen >>>> spontaneously from the amounts of building blocks that might plausibly >>>> (again by theory) have escaped asphaltic devolution in water.*
4. THE SINGLE BIOPOLYMER PARADOX. "Even if we can make biopolymers
prebiotically, it is hard to imagine making two or three (DNA, RNA,
proteins) at the same time."
5. THE PROBABILITY PARADOX. "However, experiments show that RNA
molecules that catalyze the destruction of RNA are more likely to arise >>>> in a pool of random (with respect to fitness) sequences."
Unlike Hossenfelder, Benner has an optimistic take: "...the concept of >>>> 'paradox' should not be daunting. We expect that (hope that?) most of
these paradoxes will be resolved by experiments that show that the
theories that generate them are incorrect, incomplete, or inapplicable >>>> to particular molecular systems that just happen to have been
present on
early Earth. Others may be resolved because, like most exercises that
apply logic to the real world, their reasoning is imperfect."
My contention is that these paradoxes have only deepened since Benner
nailed them to the church door.
If you disagree, please show evidence to contrary, but be careful to
heed Benner's own warning:
"However, even if we accept the premise that the emergence of rCLbiologyrCY
from 'chemistry' necessarily involves a lengthy pathway, we must
confront a bigger problem before we attempt to design experiments to
re-
create such a pathway in a laboratory. We are now 60 years into the
modern era of prebiotic chemistry. That era has produced tens of
thousands of papers attempting to define processes by which 'molecules >>>> that look like biology' might arise from 'molecules that do not look
like biology', find conditions where oligomers might form spontaneously >>>> from those molecules, identify constraints on pre-metabolic cycles that >>>> might deliver those molecules without leaking material into the
complexity sometimes characterized as 'asphalt', or assemble ways to
create chiral compounds largely free from their enantiomers. For the
most part, these papers report 'success' in the sense that those papers >>>> define the term."
"And yet, the problem remains unsolved."
...
"Pure 'hypothesis-based research' will not help. Hypotheses cannot be
formed without a *theoretical [and experimental]* context, precisely
what is missing in the origins field."
____
* Paradoxes in the Origin of Life
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
Denial is never going to do what you want it to do.-a The simple fact is >>> that no one knows how the origin of life got started.-a Ignorance is no
reason to claim victory.-a The origin of life research is just not of
very much interest to scientists.-a As you seem to be pointing out about >>> particle physics any results are just "so what?"-a The origin of life
researchers do not even want to figure out how life arose on this
planet.-a All that they can hope to figure out is the most probable way
in which life may have started.-a This is not the actual way that life
started on this planet.-a A ball of RNA and nucleotides may have been
deposited by a comet into a clay substrate surrounding some type of old
faithful geyser to kick start self replicating RNAs.-a We are never going >>> to know things like that.
What you and Tour have to face is that the god that fills the origin of
life gap is not the god described in the Bible, so it is senseless to
wallow in the denial in order to support your religious beliefs.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where,
well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need
for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago,
say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
On 2/8/2026 3:14 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, say Last Thursday.
That is what the ICR is claiming, but their creation happen on a
Thursday around 10,000 years ago.
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
What are you doing? You understand that the origin of life gap is not Biblical []
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 17:13:49 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/2026 3:14 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
[Snipping really helps focus]
Too long ago, things might start evolving, and we can't be having any of that.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>> say Last Thursday.
That is what the ICR is claiming, but their creation happen on a
Thursday around 10,000 years ago.
On Mon, 9 Feb 2026 10:34:12 -0600
RonO <rokimoto557@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
[]
What are you doing? You understand that the origin of life gap is not
Biblical []
Does he? It seems he wants doubts in Science, which 'therefore' causes his faith in Religion to be stronger.
I don't I can 'win' here, he's pretty blind to logic.
Christian Anfinsen (1916u1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
oI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.o
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
William Shockley, inventor of the transistor and winner of the 1956
Nobel Prize in Physics:
"The major cause for American Negroes intellectual and social deficits
is hereditary and racially genetic in origin and thus not remedial to a
major degree by improvement in environment."
and
"Nature has color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically
reliable predictions of their adaptability to intellectual rewarding and effective lives can easily be made and profitably used by the pragmatic man-in-the street."
So he knows everything about everything, right?
On 2/10/2026 10:08 PM, Samuel Spade wrote:Since you mention it, that would be a case of attacking the person and
sticks <wolverine01@charter.net> wrote:
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I forgot to note this quote was taken from the book 'God The Science The >Evidence'. Not that it makes any difference.
William Shockley, inventor of the transistor and winner of the 1956
Nobel Prize in Physics:
"The major cause for American Negroes intellectual and social deficits
is hereditary and racially genetic in origin and thus not remedial to a
major degree by improvement in environment."
and
"Nature has color-coded groups of individuals so that statistically
reliable predictions of their adaptability to intellectual rewarding and
effective lives can easily be made and profitably used by the pragmatic
man-in-the street."
So he knows everything about everything, right?
I suppose it was the word "idiot" in Anfinsen's words that triggered you
and your pals.
--God doesn't support creation. Creationists do.
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and >winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and >knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive.
Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
========================================
[1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and
atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where
people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't
have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a
God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
========================================
[1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and
atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where
people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
On 2/16/26 5:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!)
where,
well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no >>>>> need
for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a
bit ago,
say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
How about if we just reject the existence of any detectable God, i.e.
one for which evidence would be expected if it existed? "I had no need
of that hypothesis."
Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive.
To put it mildly. I don't in fact think there is supporting evidence
unless you're very liberal with the concept of evidence. Would we count
the Virgin of Guadaloupe as evidence? The Gospel of Mark? The Shroud of Turin?
Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from
encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various
atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are
essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of
intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
The word "physically" does the heavy lifting there. Can we detect this something at all, in any way? And the question is whether, if it
existed, we should be able to detect it. Regarding the undetectable, we
can say nothing useful.
What we know is that we are the end of the chain, to the extent that
it's a chain, currently, and excepting anything undetectable. There
could be much smarter beings around Tau Ceti, and there could be very clever, invisible leprechauns, but we have no way of knowing and might
as well not posit them.
========================================
[1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and
atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where
people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
I don't think there are any such, but perhaps you could point some out. Defining a word to refer to a group with no members is not helpful. Some wiggle room seems necessary.
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply
haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
Perhaps we could define an atheist to be one who believes that there is sufficient evidence to disbelieve in all of the gods of all the major religions. Just as you disbelieve in Zeus and Odin and Ganesh, some
other people would add YHWH and Allah (assuming you consider them different). And probably for reasons similar to yours.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't
have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a
God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
On 2/16/2026 7:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
Anfinsen was for most of his life considered himself an orthodox
agnostic.-a It wasn't until his work on the folding of proteins, which
got him the Nobel, that he began his professing of evidence of
intelligent design in the process and in 1989 he wrote, an
"all-powerful, all-knowing entity" must exist to explain the complexity
he observed in the lab.-a The quote above was in a book published in
1992, "Cosmos, Bios, Theos: Scientists Reflect on Science, God, and the Origins of the Universe, Life, and Homo sapiens".-a This was not a gap
for him, he realized it was a door that needed information to open that natural processes couldn't deliver.
I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't
have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a
God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from
encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I kind of disagree with the rational part, but I suppose I am not a very good "believer" in that I am not concerned with convincing people.-a I am willing to talk about it, and I am concerned that my loved ones believe things I think are ridiculous, but in TO, for example, I could give to
shits what anyone else believes.-a It's not my job to convince them of anything.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various
atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are
essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of
intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
What interests me is the total lack of curiosity in the majority of the population in even considering why the hell all this is here.-a They've
all mostly been convinced all this has been figured out and God is Dead.
-aThat's what they get taught in schools.-a Though I do think there is a bit of a spiritual revival going on, and the ID people are having a lot
to do with this in positive ways, the vast majority of people still
claim to be atheist.
I also do understand this leaning to disbelief, to be honest.-a First, they've been told all their lives that's how it is.
Though they have no
problem watching movies or reading books with all kinds of supernatural powers and space aliens of all kinds, thinking there is actually
something supernatural in real life is a whole other thing.-a It is difficult for me too.-a It is such an incredible thing to realize there actually could be something out there that created the universe and it
just hasn't been around forever on it's own.-a It's difficult to grasp.
If you are going to think it through on your own, where do you start?
That's one of the reasons why I like the book, that it appears only you
and I read, "God The Science The Evidence."-a They write about 3 things I don't believe science has a suitable answer for.-a The Big Bang, the fine tuning, and the Origin of Life.-a You and I differ on some things, but
most likely agree these three display Intelligent Design and something
other than natural causes had to have played a part in them happening.
If, like me, you come to the conclusion it did require something else,
what then?
You consider what that intelligent agent would be.-a I conclude that God must have aseity as a main quality.-a He wouldn't have done this because
he needed to.-a So you ask yourself why.
If you can answer that question, you probably move on to consider what
the world's population thinks about a supernatural agent.-a You wonder if
a God would make this for the hell of it and then disappear, or be a
part of it.-a You look at the different religions and decide if any of
them make sense to you.-a For me only one did.-a Realizing that the three scenarios talked about in the book need another answer than naturalism,
I find my religion changes the way I look at everything, and yes even
the assumptions made and the conclusions of scientific research.
What country do you live in? Certainly not the U.S. I'm unable to think
of any country with a majority of atheists or in which atheism is taught
in schools.
"aseity"?
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain
is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws
exist).
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and >>winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there >>exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and >>knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheismYour understanding expressed above completely misrepresents what
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't
have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a
God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from >encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various >atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are >essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of >intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
========================================--
[1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and
atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where
people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply >haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:asserted by fiat.
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain
is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is >effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms >within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist). Incorrect. A First Cause explains nothing when that First Cause is
On 2/17/2026 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:You failed your father in part because you didn't listen to what he
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain
is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is
effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms
within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws
exist).
The thing I was trying to point out is that a being with aseity did not
have the need to do any of this. He wouldn't have NEEDED us for
anything. I thought this was fairly clear when I wrote this:
"He wouldn't have done this because he needed to. So you ask yourself why."
This is all part of what I think a rational person would have to do if
the "WHY" question is asked, which is something that surely must happen
if, like me, you decide for yourself something other than materialistic >means was involved. For example, many people have chosen to use the God >could not be real if he allowed this much pain and suffering in the
world. My father, unfortunately, went to his grave with this belief.
It still haunts me since I can address this question much better I
believe now. I failed him.
In simpler words, why would a God who had no need for shitheads like us >humans bother doing all this? What religions or beliefs have a God like >this?Your questions presume that God exists, the fundamental flaw with all
--God doesn't support creation. Creationists do.
Science DoesnrCOt Support Darwin. Scientists Do
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:23:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain
is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is
effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms
within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
Incorrect. A First Cause explains nothing when that First Cause is
asserted by fiat.
On 18/02/2026 2:30 pm, jillery wrote:Everything your wrote above is completely incorrect. The category
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:23:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain
is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is
effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms
within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
Incorrect. A First Cause explains nothing when that First Cause is
asserted by fiat.
Ironically, you're committing the category error described.
You're requiring the First Cause hypothesis to explain the *how* of the >universe. It explains the *why*.
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:13:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 2:30 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:23:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain >>>> is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is
effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to >>>> the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms >>>> within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
Incorrect. A First Cause explains nothing when that First Cause is
asserted by fiat.
Ironically, you're committing the category error described.
You're requiring the First Cause hypothesis to explain the *how* of the
universe. It explains the *why*.
Everything your wrote above is completely incorrect. The category
error is claiming First Cause hypotheses are *explanations*. First
Cause hypotheses explain neither how nor why. Their authors don't
even try to say how they explain anything at all. All they do is
assert by fiat whatever they want to believe, just as you do above.
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain
is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms within the universe.
A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws
exist).
On 2/17/2026 6:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress
is effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms
within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws
exist).
The thing I was trying to point out is that a being with aseity did not
have the need to do any of this.-a He wouldn't have NEEDED us for anything.-a I thought this was fairly clear when I wrote this:
"He wouldn't have done this because he needed to.-a So you ask yourself why."
This is all part of what I think a rational person would have to do if
the "WHY" question is asked, which is something that surely must happen
if, like me, you decide for yourself something other than materialistic means was involved.-a For example, many people have chosen to use the God could not be real if he allowed this much pain and suffering in the
world.-a My father, unfortunately, went to his grave with this belief. It still haunts me since I can address this question much better I believe now.-a I failed him.
In simpler words, why would a God who had no need for shitheads like us humans bother doing all this?-a What religions or beliefs have a God like this?
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress
is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms
within the universe.
Why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because, so there.
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress
is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at least
not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise that
here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens
its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted
to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe
mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by
saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because, so
there.
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:11:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
So why *is* there a universe, in your view? To kill people in the
vastness of outer space? That would certainly fit with the known
abundance of space available to accomplish this. And how do you know
God would prefer a universe of light rather than darkness?
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 20:46:44 -0800
Vincent Maycock <maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:11:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
So why *is* there a universe, in your view? To kill people in the
vastness of outer space? That would certainly fit with the known
abundance of space available to accomplish this. And how do you know
God would prefer a universe of light rather than darkness?
Gods like people; they're the only one's who can do the worshipping -
but it does seem quite a convoluted effort to make a universe (just right,
or lots of them) 13.8 billions years ago and then have to wait 4.5
billion years for one planet around a mediocre sun on a disregraded limb of >an undistinguished galaxy to cool down, evolve life, destroy quite a few >promising species, and eventually get an intelligent enough ape.
I'm with William of Ockham here. (in case there's any doubt!) >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
On 2026-02-16 7:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>>>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>>>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy
designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago, >>>>> say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916-1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
"I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
Without some agreed upon criteria for what a 'GOD' is, I don't think
such atheists exist. The sun exists and some people consider the SUN to
be a god. So there is a god that exists, it's just that most people do
not think that it is a GOD. At the other extreme there may be a GOD-like >entity in some metaverse outside ours that did something to create our >universe. This is a GOD that may 'exist' but so what. Belief or not,
worship or not; it makes no difference. More parsimonious to just not >believe.
Then the more interesting presently active GODs with definite *OPINIONS*
and an invested priesthood. The more benign of these seem to be cleaned
up versions of rather vicious tribal gods requiring special pleading to >excuse their more callous behaviour ('mysterious ways' anyone?).
SO far, every belief I have come upon that postulates a GOD has failed
to provide the slightest reason to believe that their GOD exists. So I
think I have taken the quite rational provisional opinion that such GODs
do not exist.
I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't
have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a
God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from
encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various
atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are
essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of
intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
Hard to come up with a more exceptional degree of hubris than: 'There
exists an all-knowing, all-powerful GOD that has a deep personal
interest in ME''
========================================
[1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and
atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where
people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply
haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
--
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a
naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in the equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever know
for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles jumping
in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one thing in common.
Like the multiverse they are all impossible to prove.-a Which if you were
to use the logic some here use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate
all of them from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good resource
in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something coming from it
in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K. C. Cole "The Hole
In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and
Found Everything".-a The author does an excellent job of making understanding this stuff fun, and though he is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he really just ignores it), and
does acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andrComost importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of why the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum mechanics
itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of universe has to
be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why quantum mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them out,
and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial conditions of
the Big Bang present, they just move them further back in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in the book, and so
far impossible to reproduce.-a Yet, it is obvious that ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the quantum world, still requires
origin explanations.-a The best they can do for now is the low energy
state, but have not explained where and how that energy is supposed to
come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even though "space and time"
didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the quantum vacuum is
eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable to
any of this research.-a It all sounds like something an intelligent being just might use to begin the creation of the universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was the source of
the energy?rCY
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.
It shows
acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a
naturalist origin. They are looking for their bottom turtle in the >equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever know
for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers
to make it work, particles jumping
in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing numbers of >dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one thing in common.
Like the multiverse they are all impossible to prove.
Which if you were
to use the logic some here use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate
all of them from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good resource
in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and work in >understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something coming from it
in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K. C. Cole "The Hole
In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and
Found Everything". The author does an excellent job of making
understanding this stuff fun, and though he is not a theist, does not >attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he really just ignores it),
and
does acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.Here's one good quote
from his book:
othe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from nothing. >Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andumost
importantuo nothingo itself is impossible) the question of why the
universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum mechanics
itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of universe has to
be here. The only thing we donAt know is Why quantum mechanics? Why laws
of nature at all?o
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them out,
and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does nothing but >bring up the same problems and questions as the initial conditions of
the Big Bang present, they just move them further back in time. The >"vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in the book, and so
far impossible to reproduce.
Yet, it is obvious that ANY scenario
presented, even in the craziness of the quantum world, still requires
origin explanations. The best they can do for now is the low energy
state, but have not explained where and how that energy is supposed to
come from. Yes, they are saying that even though "space and time"
didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the quantum vacuum is
eternal. I understand the materialist's need to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable to
any of this research. It all sounds like something an intelligent being >just might use to begin the creation of the universe.
It just couldn't
have happened on it's own.
A last quote: oThe particles can be created
out of the vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was the source of
the energy?o
On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 10:59:12 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 2026-02-16 7:43 a.m., Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
wrote:
On 2/8/2026 5:52 PM, MarkE wrote:
Thank you for keeping it brief.
Yet these people keep looking for Holes in Science (easy enough!) where, >>>>>> well, the only answer must be a Divine Intervention. But there's no need >>>>>> for any of that - if you want a Better God (he's certainly a dodgy >>>>>> designer) simply have him create the world just as it is, only a bit ago,
say Last Thursday.
Is all you have to offer this repetitious get-out-of-jail-free
avoidance? It's of the same value as the Monopoly card.
Christian Anfinsen (1916-1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
"I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and >>>> knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
Without some agreed upon criteria for what a 'GOD' is, I don't think
such atheists exist. The sun exists and some people consider the SUN to
be a god. So there is a god that exists, it's just that most people do
not think that it is a GOD. At the other extreme there may be a GOD-like
entity in some metaverse outside ours that did something to create our
universe. This is a GOD that may 'exist' but so what. Belief or not,
worship or not; it makes no difference. More parsimonious to just not
believe.
Then the more interesting presently active GODs with definite *OPINIONS*
and an invested priesthood. The more benign of these seem to be cleaned
up versions of rather vicious tribal gods requiring special pleading to
excuse their more callous behaviour ('mysterious ways' anyone?).
SO far, every belief I have come upon that postulates a GOD has failed
to provide the slightest reason to believe that their GOD exists. So I
think I have taken the quite rational provisional opinion that such GODs
do not exist.
I have no issue with you having a *provisional* position but I don't
think there was anything provisional about the opinions of people like
'The Four Horsemen' - Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris; that is
the type of atheism I was referring to.
I don't have an issue with agnosticism, the view that we simply don't
have enough evidence to either accept or reject the existence of a
God. Whilst I think there is supporting evidence for religious belief,
that evidence is far from conclusive. Religious belief, at the end of
the day, is a very personal thing; I recently mentioned elsewhere a
'Thought for the Day' newsletter I received titled "Faith comes from
encounter, not hearsay". On that basis, I have no issue whatsoever
with someone saying "Sorry, you haven't convinced me" - that is a
perfectly rational conclusion.
I can't, however, see any rationality in atheism. I have heard various
atheists criticising religious believers for thinking that there is
something special about humans but it seems to me, that they are the
people who are making their own special claims about humans. They are
essentially saying that humans are the end of the chain in terms of
intelligence or intellectual development; that if we humans cannot
physically detect something, then it must not exist. That seems to me
an exceptional degree of hubris.
Hard to come up with a more exceptional degree of hubris than: 'There
exists an all-knowing, all-powerful GOD that has a deep personal
interest in ME''
Even harder to come up with a more exceptional degree of hubris than
Dawkins accusing me of child abuse because I taught them things he
disagrees with.
========================================
[1] I realise that there is a continuum between agnosticism and
atheism but I don't want to get into semantic arguments about where
people might be on that continuum; I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply
haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
--
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It
shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a
naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in the
equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever
know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles
jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing
numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one
thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all impossible to
prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some here use for a
supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good resource
in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and work in
understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something coming from
it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K. C. Cole "The
Hole In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the Edge of
Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The author does an excellent job of
making understanding this stuff fun, and though he is not a theist,
does not attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he really just ignores
it), and does acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from
nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andrComost
importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of why the
universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum mechanics
itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of universe has to
be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why quantum mechanics? Why
laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them
out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does
nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial
conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them further back
in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in
the book, and so far impossible to reproduce.-a Yet, it is obvious that
ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the quantum world,
still requires origin explanations.-a The best they can do for now is
the low energy state, but have not explained where and how that energy
is supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even though
"space and time" didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the
quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need to
believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable
to any of this research.-a It all sounds like something an intelligent
being just might use to begin the creation of the universe.-a It just
couldn't have happened on it's own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can
be created out of the vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was
the source of the energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a source.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by
non-material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It
shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a
naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in the
equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever
know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles
jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing
numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one
thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all impossible to
prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some here use for a
supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good
resource in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and
work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something
coming from it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K.
C. Cole "The Hole In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the
Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The author does an
excellent job of making understanding this stuff fun, and though he
is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he
really just ignores it), and does acknowledge the many, many
difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from
nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum
(andrComost importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of
why the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum
mechanics itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of
universe has to be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why quantum
mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them
out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does
nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial
conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them further back
in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in
the book, and so far impossible to reproduce.-a Yet, it is obvious
that ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the quantum
world, still requires origin explanations.-a The best they can do for
now is the low energy state, but have not explained where and how
that energy is supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even
though "space and time" didn't come into being until the Big Bang,
the quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need
to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable
to any of this research.-a It all sounds like something an intelligent
being just might use to begin the creation of the universe.-a It just
couldn't have happened on it's own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can >>> be created out of the vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was
the source of the energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a source.
No, I don't.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
I didn't say you can't.-a I believe claiming it as eternal would qualify
as not needing a naturalistic source.-a It's a brute fact.-a However, as
you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in the quote.-a He was talking about the source of the energy that theoretically allow things
to happen.-a That still needs a source it appears.-a Are you saying it doesn't?
On 2/19/26 12:30 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It
shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a
naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in the
equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever
know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles
jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing
numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one
thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all impossible to
prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some here use for a
supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good
resource in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and
work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something
coming from it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K.
C. Cole "The Hole In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the
Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The author does an
excellent job of making understanding this stuff fun, and though he
is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he
really just ignores it), and does acknowledge the many, many
difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from
nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andrCo
most importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of why >>>> the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum
mechanics itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of
universe has to be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why quantum >>>> mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them
out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does
nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial
conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them further back
in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in >>>> the book, and so far impossible to reproduce.-a Yet, it is obvious
that ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the quantum
world, still requires origin explanations.-a The best they can do for >>>> now is the low energy state, but have not explained where and how
that energy is supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are saying that
even though "space and time" didn't come into being until the Big
Bang, the quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand the materialist's >>>> need to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable
to any of this research.-a It all sounds like something an
intelligent being just might use to begin the creation of the
universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's own.-a A last
quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the vacuum, given
sufficient energy. But what was the source of the energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a source.
No, I don't.
Of course you did. That's what "uncaused cause" and "aseity" mean.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
I didn't say you can't.-a I believe claiming it as eternal would
qualify as not needing a naturalistic source.-a It's a brute fact.
However, as you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in the
quote.-a He was talking about the source of the energy that
theoretically allow things to happen.-a That still needs a source it
appears.-a Are you saying it doesn't?
Why would it? Not that I'm a physicist or anything.
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise
that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens
its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how" contributes
here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And "non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established that it has any
validity either.
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, or
to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head:
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe in
the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted
to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe
mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by
saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because,
so there.
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light" >>>
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise
that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens
its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how" contributes
here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And "non-material"
or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of course that
doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established that it has
any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism holding
that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of the human brain and
nervous system. It contrasts with monistic idealism, which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related to naturalism, the view
that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, or
to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head:
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe in
the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted >>>>> to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe
mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by
saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because,
so there.
On 2/19/2026 3:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 12:30 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:No, I don't.
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum >>>>>> vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It >>>>> shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for
a naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in
the equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to
ever know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles
jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their
differing numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do
have one thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all
impossible to prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some here >>>>> use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them from
consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good
resource in trying to understand the progression of the thinking
and work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of
something coming from it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a
book by K. C. Cole "The Hole In The Universe - How Scientists
Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The
author does an excellent job of making understanding this stuff
fun, and though he is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss the >>>>> supernatural (he really just ignores it), and does acknowledge the
many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from
nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andrCo >>>>> most importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of why
the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum
mechanics itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of
universe has to be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why
quantum mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them
out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does
nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial >>>>> conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them further
back in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as
shown in the book, and so far impossible to reproduce.-a Yet, it is >>>>> obvious that ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the
quantum world, still requires origin explanations.-a The best they
can do for now is the low energy state, but have not explained
where and how that energy is supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are >>>>> saying that even though "space and time" didn't come into being
until the Big Bang, the quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand
the materialist's need to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing
objectionable to any of this research.-a It all sounds like
something an intelligent being just might use to begin the creation >>>>> of the universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's own.-a A
last quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the vacuum, given >>>>> sufficient energy. But what was the source of the energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a source. >>>
Of course you did. That's what "uncaused cause" and "aseity" mean.
Of course a God has to have attributes.-a You can conclude God has always been, and still try and understand how that is possible in the process
of making that conclusion.-a I suppose some people don't, but I certainly did.-a It's not necessary, but having an answer can be helpful.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
I didn't say you can't.-a I believe claiming it as eternal would
qualify as not needing a naturalistic source.-a It's a brute fact.
However, as you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in the
quote.-a He was talking about the source of the energy that
theoretically allow things to happen.-a That still needs a source it
appears.-a Are you saying it doesn't?
Why would it? Not that I'm a physicist or anything.
It's eternal...got it.-a That makes this your religion.
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light" >>>
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise
that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens
its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how" contributes
here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And "non-material"
or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of course that
doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established that it has
any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism holding
that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of the human brain and
nervous system. It contrasts with monistic idealism, which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related to naturalism, the view
that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, morality, consciousness or self-consciousness" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, or
to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head:
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe in
the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted >>>>> to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe
mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by
saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because,
so there.
On 2/19/26 6:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal >>>>>> chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was
light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way
lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of
the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious
reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And
"non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of
course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established
that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually
exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of options,
namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other possible things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no distinction between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s.
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism
holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that
all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material
interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of the
human brain and nervous system. It contrasts with monistic idealism,
which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related to
naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces operate in the
universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is
ultimately physical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
I think you should mean energy when you say matter. Photons aren't
matter. Bond energy isn't matter. And so on. Of course we have no idea
from this what "non-material" means, only one thing it doesn't mean.
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason,
morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So none of these attributes is necessary or sufficient, and we have no
idea what other attributes could be on the list?
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it,
or to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head:
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe in
the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are
restricted to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they
describe mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by
saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because, >>>>> so there.
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material
agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the
favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for a
naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in the equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to ever know
for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles jumping
in and out, the numerous string theories and their differing numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do have one thing in common.
Like the multiverse they are all impossible to prove.-a Which if you were
to use the logic some here use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate
all of them from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good resource
in trying to understand the progression of the thinking and work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of something coming from it
in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a book by K. C. Cole "The Hole
In The Universe - How Scientists Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and
Found Everything".-a The author does an excellent job of making understanding this stuff fun, and though he is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss the supernatural (he really just ignores it), and
does acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andrComost important rCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of why the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum mechanics itself: In a
quantum mechanical universe, some kind of universe has to be here. The
only thing we donrCOt know is Why quantum mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them out,
and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the initial conditions of
the Big Bang present, they just move them further back in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to explain as shown in the book, and so
far impossible to reproduce.-a Yet, it is obvious that ANY scenario presented, even in the craziness of the quantum world, still requires
origin explanations.-a The best they can do for now is the low energy
state, but have not explained where and how that energy is supposed to
come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even though "space and time"
didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the quantum vacuum is
eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing objectionable to
any of this research.-a It all sounds like something an intelligent being just might use to begin the creation of the universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was the source of
the energy?rCY
On 20/02/2026 3:22 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 6:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal >>>>>>> chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by >>>>>> fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was
light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe?
and *How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way
lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of
the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is
fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And
"non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of
course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established
that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually
exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of
options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other
possible things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no
distinction between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a
bundle of "how"s.
What tells us that "how" has no part in "why" option 1? It's the howls
of protest that "an appeal to God explains nothing".
To which my response is, yes, that is true insofar as there is no "how"
in, for example, "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was
light." It's all "why/what".
Your assertion that 'Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s' misunderstands this.
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism
holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that
all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material
interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of the
human brain and nervous system. It contrasts with monistic idealism,
which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related to
naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces operate in the
universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is
ultimately physical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
I think you should mean energy when you say matter. Photons aren't
matter. Bond energy isn't matter. And so on. Of course we have no idea
from this what "non-material" means, only one thing it doesn't mean.
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason,
morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So none of these attributes is necessary or sufficient, and we have no
idea what other attributes could be on the list?
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it,
or to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head: >>>>
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe
in the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are
restricted to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they >>>>>>> describe mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by >>>>>> saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain
because, so there.
On 20/02/2026 1:25 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal >>>>>> chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by
non-material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was
light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way
lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of
the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious
reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And
"non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of
course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established
that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually
exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of options,
namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
The paragraph above was sloppy; to clarify and expand:
The process operative in either of these two options belongs in a
separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe
was caused.
Category A: *why* the universe is, or *who/what* caused the universe
Category B: processes/mechanisms as to *how* the universe was caused
How useful this is is a another question. Establishing working
definitions is a necessary first step.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism
holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that
all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material
interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of the
human brain and nervous system. It contrasts with monistic idealism,
which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related to
naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces operate in the
universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is
ultimately physical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason,
morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it,
or to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head:
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe in
the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are
restricted to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they
describe mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by
saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because, >>>>> so there.
On 2/19/26 2:28 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 3:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 12:30 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as: >>>>>>>
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal
quantum vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the >>>>>> favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists.-a It >>>>>> shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem for >>>>>> a naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom turtle in >>>>>> the equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of science to >>>>>> ever know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles
jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their
differing numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties do >>>>>> have one thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all
impossible to prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some here >>>>>> use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them from
consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good
resource in trying to understand the progression of the thinking
and work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of
something coming from it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is a >>>>>> book by K. C. Cole "The Hole In The Universe - How Scientists
Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The
author does an excellent job of making understanding this stuff
fun, and though he is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss
the supernatural (he really just ignores it), and does acknowledge >>>>>> the many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from >>>>>> nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (andrCo >>>>>> most importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of >>>>>> why the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum
mechanics itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of
universe has to be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why
quantum mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay them >>>>>> out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories does >>>>>> nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the
initial conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them
further back in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to
explain as shown in the book, and so far impossible to reproduce. >>>>>> Yet, it is obvious that ANY scenario presented, even in the
craziness of the quantum world, still requires origin
explanations.-a The best they can do for now is the low energy
state, but have not explained where and how that energy is
supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even though
"space and time" didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the
quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need to >>>>>> believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing
objectionable to any of this research.-a It all sounds like
something an intelligent being just might use to begin the
creation of the universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's >>>>>> own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the
vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was the source of the
energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a
source.
No, I don't.
Of course you did. That's what "uncaused cause" and "aseity" mean.
Of course a God has to have attributes.-a You can conclude God has
always been, and still try and understand how that is possible in the
process of making that conclusion.-a I suppose some people don't, but I
certainly did.-a It's not necessary, but having an answer can be helpful.
That's a lot of words that communicate nothing to me.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
I didn't say you can't.-a I believe claiming it as eternal would
qualify as not needing a naturalistic source.-a It's a brute fact.
However, as you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in
the quote.-a He was talking about the source of the energy that
theoretically allow things to happen.-a That still needs a source it
appears.-a Are you saying it doesn't?
Why would it? Not that I'm a physicist or anything.
It's eternal...got it.-a That makes this your religion.
Eternal = religion? Why would that be?
Lawrence Krauss with his "A Universe from Nothing" has been taken to
task that his "nothingrCY is not nothing. Krauss redefines "nothing" to include the laws of physics, space, and quantum fluctuations.
But credit for acknowledging the implication of the universe having a beginning by attempting to develop a materialistic work-around.
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 09:59:02 +0000, "Kerr-Mudd, John"
<admin@127.0.0.1> wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 20:46:44 -0800
Vincent Maycock <maycock@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 19 Feb 2026 14:11:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light" >> >
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
So why *is* there a universe, in your view? To kill people in the
vastness of outer space? That would certainly fit with the known
abundance of space available to accomplish this. And how do you know
God would prefer a universe of light rather than darkness?
Gods like people; they're the only one's who can do the worshipping -
but it does seem quite a convoluted effort to make a universe (just right, >or lots of them) 13.8 billions years ago and then have to wait 4.5
billion years for one planet around a mediocre sun on a disregraded limb of >an undistinguished galaxy to cool down, evolve life, destroy quite a few >promising species, and eventually get an intelligent enough ape.
I'm with William of Ockham here. (in case there's any doubt!) >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham
Yeah, "It happened and by the way God did it" is scarcely better than
"It happened therefore we have to conclude that God it."
On 2/19/2026 10:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 2:28 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 3:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 12:30 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation? >>>>>>>>
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as: >>>>>>>>
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non- >>>>>>>> material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal
quantum vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the >>>>>>> favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists. >>>>>>> It shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem >>>>>>> for a naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom
turtle in the equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of >>>>>>> science to ever know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles >>>>>>> jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their
differing numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties >>>>>>> do have one thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all
impossible to prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some
here use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them
from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good
resource in trying to understand the progression of the thinking >>>>>>> and work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of
something coming from it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is >>>>>>> a book by K. C. Cole "The Hole In The Universe - How Scientists >>>>>>> Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The
author does an excellent job of making understanding this stuff >>>>>>> fun, and though he is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss >>>>>>> the supernatural (he really just ignores it), and does
acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from >>>>>>> nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum
(andrCo most importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the >>>>>>> question of why the universe is here is answered by the existence >>>>>>> of quantum mechanics itself: In a quantum mechanical universe,
some kind of universe has to be here. The only thing we donrCOt >>>>>>> know is Why quantum mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay
them out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories >>>>>>> does nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the >>>>>>> initial conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them >>>>>>> further back in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to
explain as shown in the book, and so far impossible to reproduce. >>>>>>> Yet, it is obvious that ANY scenario presented, even in the
craziness of the quantum world, still requires origin
explanations.-a The best they can do for now is the low energy
state, but have not explained where and how that energy is
supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even though
"space and time" didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the >>>>>>> quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need >>>>>>> to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing
objectionable to any of this research.-a It all sounds like
something an intelligent being just might use to begin the
creation of the universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's >>>>>>> own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the >>>>>>> vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was the source of the >>>>>>> energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a
source.
No, I don't.
Of course you did. That's what "uncaused cause" and "aseity" mean.
Of course a God has to have attributes.-a You can conclude God has
always been, and still try and understand how that is possible in the
process of making that conclusion.-a I suppose some people don't, but
I certainly did.-a It's not necessary, but having an answer can be
helpful.
That's a lot of words that communicate nothing to me.
If I thought you were actually interested in it, I would offer more.
You're not.
But this is what you seem to usually do.-a I responded to this post to acknowledge the work on quantum vacuum, and note that ultimately you're
left with the same unanswered questions.-a You go on to completely ignore that and turn the issue into having me defending something else.-a You
like to pick out inconsequential words and argue over the meaning. Claim others are wrong about something because they disagree with your
definition of what assumptions are valid and conclusions are made
without ever addressing the valid theory.-a You're not really interested
in differing opinions, only in making the person having one dance your dance.-a I've lost interest in doing that.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
I didn't say you can't.-a I believe claiming it as eternal would
qualify as not needing a naturalistic source.-a It's a brute fact.
However, as you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in
the quote.-a He was talking about the source of the energy that
theoretically allow things to happen.-a That still needs a source it >>>>> appears.-a Are you saying it doesn't?
Why would it? Not that I'm a physicist or anything.
It's eternal...got it.-a That makes this your religion.
Eternal = religion? Why would that be?
...see above.
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:So everything was still without form and void, but at least you could
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal
chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress
is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by fiat.
It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my >suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at least
not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise that
here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens
its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.
--
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to
the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms
within the universe.
Why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there
something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by saying
it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain because, so there.
On 18/02/2026 8:24 pm, jillery wrote:Really? Do you suppose my definition is any different than yours? As
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 16:13:52 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18/02/2026 2:30 pm, jillery wrote:
On Wed, 18 Feb 2026 11:23:15 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle.
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal chain >>>>> is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite regress is
effectively no explanation.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are restricted to >>>>> the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they describe mechanisms >>>>> within the universe. A First Cause explains why the universe exists
(e.g. why there something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
Incorrect. A First Cause explains nothing when that First Cause is
asserted by fiat.
Ironically, you're committing the category error described.
You're requiring the First Cause hypothesis to explain the *how* of the
universe. It explains the *why*.
Everything your wrote above is completely incorrect. The category
error is claiming First Cause hypotheses are *explanations*. First
Cause hypotheses explain neither how nor why. Their authors don't
even try to say how they explain anything at all. All they do is
assert by fiat whatever they want to believe, just as you do above.
Define "explain".
On 2/20/26 2:14 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:22 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 6:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the
causal chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an
infinite regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause >>>>>>> by fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my >>>>>> suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum >>>>>> vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving >>>>>> action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was >>>>>> light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe?
and *How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at >>>>>> least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way
lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of >>>>>> the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is
fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And
"non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now
of course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't
established that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually
exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of
options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other
possible things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no
distinction between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a
bundle of "how"s.
What tells us that "how" has no part in "why" option 1? It's the howls
of protest that "an appeal to God explains nothing".
To which my response is, yes, that is true insofar as there is no
"how" in, for example, "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there
was light." It's all "why/what".
Your assertion that 'Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s'
misunderstands this.
Well, somebody is misunderstanding something, that much is clear.
Another thing that's clear is that you can spend a lot of words to say
very little.
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism
holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that
all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material
interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of
the human brain and nervous system. It contrasts with monistic
idealism, which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related
to naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces operate in
the universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is
ultimately physical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
I think you should mean energy when you say matter. Photons aren't
matter. Bond energy isn't matter. And so on. Of course we have no
idea from this what "non-material" means, only one thing it doesn't
mean.
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason,
morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So none of these attributes is necessary or sufficient, and we have
no idea what other attributes could be on the list?
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, >>>>> or to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head: >>>>>
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe
in the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are
restricted to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they >>>>>>>> describe mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there >>>>>>>> something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by >>>>>>> saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain
because, so there.
On 2/19/2026 10:25 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 2:28 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 3:45 PM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 12:30 PM, sticks wrote:
On 2/19/2026 11:51 AM, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 7:47 AM, sticks wrote:
On 2/18/2026 9:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation? >>>>>>>>
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as: >>>>>>>>
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non- >>>>>>>> material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal
quantum vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
The quantum vacuum theories I think will eventually take away the >>>>>>> favorite status of the multiverse theory for the materialists. >>>>>>> It shows acknowledgement of the singularity and "nothing" problem >>>>>>> for a naturalist origin.-a They are looking for their bottom
turtle in the equation, and admit is may be beyond the ability of >>>>>>> science to ever know for sure one way or the other.
With Hawking using Imaginary numbers to make it work, particles >>>>>>> jumping in and out, the numerous string theories and their
differing numbers of dimensions, and all the other difficulties >>>>>>> do have one thing in common. Like the multiverse they are all
impossible to prove.-a Which if you were to use the logic some
here use for a supernatural cause, would eliminate all of them
from consideration.
I do want to investigate Guth's work on this more, but a good
resource in trying to understand the progression of the thinking >>>>>>> and work in understanding "nothing" and the possibility of
something coming from it in an effort to explain the Big Bang is >>>>>>> a book by K. C. Cole "The Hole In The Universe - How Scientists >>>>>>> Peered Over the Edge of Emptiness and Found Everything".-a The
author does an excellent job of making understanding this stuff >>>>>>> fun, and though he is not a theist, does not attempt to dismiss >>>>>>> the supernatural (he really just ignores it), and does
acknowledge the many, many difficulties with the theories.
Here's one good quote from his book:
rCLthe quantum vacuum seems to require that something emerge from >>>>>>> nothing. Because nothing is impossible in the quantum vacuum (and >>>>>>> rCo most importantrCorCL nothingrCY itself is impossible) the question of
why the universe is here is answered by the existence of quantum >>>>>>> mechanics itself: In a quantum mechanical universe, some kind of >>>>>>> universe has to be here. The only thing we donrCOt know is Why
quantum mechanics? Why laws of nature at all?rCY
IMO, there are more problems than this, and Mr. Cole does lay
them out, and an honest assessment of the quantum vacuum theories >>>>>>> does nothing but bring up the same problems and questions as the >>>>>>> initial conditions of the Big Bang present, they just move them >>>>>>> further back in time.-a The "vacuum" and "nothing" are hard to
explain as shown in the book, and so far impossible to reproduce. >>>>>>> Yet, it is obvious that ANY scenario presented, even in the
craziness of the quantum world, still requires origin
explanations.-a The best they can do for now is the low energy
state, but have not explained where and how that energy is
supposed to come from.-a Yes, they are saying that even though
"space and time" didn't come into being until the Big Bang, the >>>>>>> quantum vacuum is eternal.-a I understand the materialist's need >>>>>>> to believe that, I just can't.
Of course, ID proponents like myself will find nothing
objectionable to any of this research.-a It all sounds like
something an intelligent being just might use to begin the
creation of the universe.-a It just couldn't have happened on it's >>>>>>> own.-a A last quote: rCLThe particles can be created out of the >>>>>>> vacuum, given sufficient energy. But what was the source of the >>>>>>> energy?rCY
And you avoid this problem by declaring that God doesn't need a
source.
No, I don't.
Of course you did. That's what "uncaused cause" and "aseity" mean.
Of course a God has to have attributes.-a You can conclude God has
always been, and still try and understand how that is possible in the
process of making that conclusion.-a I suppose some people don't, but
I certainly did.-a It's not necessary, but having an answer can be
helpful.
That's a lot of words that communicate nothing to me.
If I thought you were actually interested in it, I would offer more.
You're not.
But this is what you seem to usually do.-a I responded to this post to acknowledge the work on quantum vacuum, and note that ultimately you're
left with the same unanswered questions.-a You go on to completely ignore that and turn the issue into having me defending something else.-a You
like to pick out inconsequential words and argue over the meaning. Claim others are wrong about something because they disagree with your
definition of what assumptions are valid and conclusions are made
without ever addressing the valid theory.-a You're not really interested
in differing opinions, only in making the person having one dance your dance.-a I've lost interest in doing that.
Why can't we also say that quantum vacuum doesn't need a source?
I didn't say you can't.-a I believe claiming it as eternal would
qualify as not needing a naturalistic source.-a It's a brute fact.
However, as you well know Guth is not talking about the vacuum in
the quote.-a He was talking about the source of the energy that
theoretically allow things to happen.-a That still needs a source it >>>>> appears.-a Are you saying it doesn't?
Why would it? Not that I'm a physicist or anything.
It's eternal...got it.-a That makes this your religion.
Eternal = religion? Why would that be?
...see above.
On 2/20/2026 6:02 AM, MarkE wrote:
Lawrence Krauss with his "A Universe from Nothing" has been taken to
task that his "nothingrCY is not nothing. Krauss redefines "nothing" to
include the laws of physics, space, and quantum fluctuations.
Thanks.-a I have put this on the reading list.-a It does appear he does
the same dance around what is nothing that materialism forces.
But credit for acknowledging the implication of the universe having a
beginning by attempting to develop a materialistic work-around.
He's not shy of making the claim that origin has no need for the supernatural.-a Looking forward to reading his evidence on this take.
On 21/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:While you're patting yourself on the back, you might want to actually
On 2/20/26 2:14 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:22 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 6:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the
causal chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an >>>>>>>>> infinite regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause >>>>>>>> by fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my >>>>>>> suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as: >>>>>>>
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum >>>>>>> vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving >>>>>>> action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was >>>>>>> light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? >>>>>>> and *How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at >>>>>>> least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way
lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of >>>>>>> the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is
fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And >>>>>> "non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now >>>>>> of course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't
established that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually >>>>> exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or, >>>>> *what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of
options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other
possible things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no
distinction between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a
bundle of "how"s.
What tells us that "how" has no part in "why" option 1? It's the howls
of protest that "an appeal to God explains nothing".
To which my response is, yes, that is true insofar as there is no
"how" in, for example, "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there
was light." It's all "why/what".
Your assertion that 'Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s'
misunderstands this.
Well, somebody is misunderstanding something, that much is clear.
Another thing that's clear is that you can spend a lot of words to say
very little.
In the course of this conversation you have raised some legitimate >objections and need for refinements. Great. I've responded to these with >care, to arrive at a definition/distinction with some merit.
But you consistently refuse to concede virtually anything at all, >regardless. And so now as you've run out of arguments, you evade by >switching to insults.--
Your MO here. Pity.
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism
holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that >>>>> all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material
interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of
the human brain and nervous system. It contrasts with monistic
idealism, which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related >>>>> to naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces operate in >>>>> the universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is
ultimately physical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
I think you should mean energy when you say matter. Photons aren't
matter. Bond energy isn't matter. And so on. Of course we have no
idea from this what "non-material" means, only one thing it doesn't
mean.
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, >>>>> morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So none of these attributes is necessary or sufficient, and we have
no idea what other attributes could be on the list?
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, >>>>>> or to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head: >>>>>>
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe >>>>>> in the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are
restricted to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they >>>>>>>>> describe mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there >>>>>>>>> something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist).
It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by >>>>>>>> saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain
because, so there.
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 23:44:17 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/20/26 2:14 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:22 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 6:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my >>>>>>>> suggestion; happy to refine it.
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the >>>>>>>>>> causal chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an >>>>>>>>>> infinite regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause >>>>>>>>> by fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress. >>>>>>>>
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation? >>>>>>>>
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as: >>>>>>>>
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-
material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum >>>>>>>> vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving >>>>>>>> action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was >>>>>>>> light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? >>>>>>>> and *How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at >>>>>>>> least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way
lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of >>>>>>>> the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is
fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And >>>>>>> "non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now >>>>>>> of course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't
established that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually >>>>>> exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or, >>>>>> *what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of
options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other
possible things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no
distinction between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a
bundle of "how"s.
What tells us that "how" has no part in "why" option 1? It's the howls >>>> of protest that "an appeal to God explains nothing".
To which my response is, yes, that is true insofar as there is no
"how" in, for example, "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there
was light." It's all "why/what".
Your assertion that 'Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s'
misunderstands this.
Well, somebody is misunderstanding something, that much is clear.
Another thing that's clear is that you can spend a lot of words to say
very little.
In the course of this conversation you have raised some legitimate
objections and need for refinements. Great. I've responded to these with
care, to arrive at a definition/distinction with some merit.
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?
But you consistently refuse to concede virtually anything at all,
regardless. And so now as you've run out of arguments, you evade by
switching to insults.
Your MO here. Pity.
* Existing separate to and not constrained by this:
"In philosophy and metaphysics, materialism is a form of monism
holding that matter is the fundamental substance of nature, so that >>>>>> all things, including mind and consciousness, arise from material
interactions and depend on physical processes, including those of
the human brain and nervous system. It contrasts with monistic
idealism, which treats consciousness as fundamental, and is related >>>>>> to naturalism, the view that only natural laws and forces operate in >>>>>> the universe, and to physicalism, the view that all that exists is >>>>>> ultimately physical."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
I think you should mean energy when you say matter. Photons aren't
matter. Bond energy isn't matter. And so on. Of course we have no
idea from this what "non-material" means, only one thing it doesn't
mean.
** "a being who has certain capacities or attributes such as reason, >>>>>> morality, consciousness or self-consciousness"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person
So none of these attributes is necessary or sufficient, and we have
no idea what other attributes could be on the list?
I would discount it because there is no conceivable way to test it, >>>>>>> or to find any evidence for or against it.
Also, there are other possibilities, at least, off the top of my head: >>>>>>>
2c. An infinite regress of gods, each one creating the next.
2d. An infinite regress of universes, with a powerful being (or
beings) evolving in one and then creating the next.
2e. Circular time, with a powerful being evolving in this universe >>>>>>> in the far future and going back in time to create it.
One could do the same for various versions of 1.
This is a common category error. Causal explanations are
restricted to the domain of methodological naturalism, i.e. they >>>>>>>>>> describe mechanisms within the universe.
Why?
Again, why?
A First Cause explains why the universe exists (e.g. why there >>>>>>>>>> something rather than nothing, and why physical laws exist). >>>>>>>>>It explains nothing. You create an exception to causation just by >>>>>>>>> saying it's an exception. The First Cause needs no explain
because, so there.
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
Christian Anfinsen (1916rCo1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
rCLI think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.rCY
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
[...]
[1] I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
On 2/16/26 5:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
Christian Anfinsen (1916-1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
"I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and
knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
[...]
[1] I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply
haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
What about Bertrand Russell's analogy to believing that there is a
teapot in the orbit of Saturn?
Would you classify Russell as an atheist
because he cannot rule out a god, but considers the evidence too low to
be worth mentioning?
And there's another, emotional, rationale for atheism. Someone looks at
all the evil done in the name of God and reasons that anyone eliminating >belief in God would be a better person.
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:Blatant evasion. Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, I
On Sat, 21 Feb 2026 23:44:17 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/20/26 2:14 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 20/02/2026 3:22 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/19/26 6:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my >>>>>>>>> suggestion; happy to refine it.
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the >>>>>>>>>>> causal chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an >>>>>>>>>>> infinite regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause >>>>>>>>>> by fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress. >>>>>>>>>
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation? >>>>>>>>>
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as: >>>>>>>>>
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non- >>>>>>>>> material agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum >>>>>>>>> vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving >>>>>>>>> action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was >>>>>>>>> light"
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? >>>>>>>>> and *How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at >>>>>>>>> least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and
recognise that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way >>>>>>>>> lessens its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of >>>>>>>>> the "why" because its "how" is inaccessible to science is
fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how"
contributes here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And >>>>>>>> "non-material" or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now >>>>>>>> of course that doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't
established that it has any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually >>>>>>> exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or, >>>>>>> *what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of
options, namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
Are we in agreement on the correctness and completeness of this?
Sure, by definition. It's either one thing or one of all other
possible things. Exhaustive by definition. But there still seems no >>>>>> distinction between "why" and "how". Each of your "why"s is just a >>>>>> bundle of "how"s.
What tells us that "how" has no part in "why" option 1? It's the howls >>>>> of protest that "an appeal to God explains nothing".
To which my response is, yes, that is true insofar as there is no
"how" in, for example, "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there >>>>> was light." It's all "why/what".
Your assertion that 'Each of your "why"s is just a bundle of "how"s' >>>>> misunderstands this.
Well, somebody is misunderstanding something, that much is clear.
Another thing that's clear is that you can spend a lot of words to say >>>> very little.
In the course of this conversation you have raised some legitimate
objections and need for refinements. Great. I've responded to these with >>> care, to arrive at a definition/distinction with some merit.
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.
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:[Lots sipped]
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:
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.
Blatant evasion. Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, IAgreed.
would say your working definitions are conversational non-starters.
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.
<snip remaining to avoid Kerr-Mudding the point>
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 05:43:43 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:[Lots sipped]
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:
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.
Semantics.
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.
Agreed.
Blatant evasion. Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, I
would say your working definitions are conversational non-starters.
Thanks.
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.
<snip remaining to avoid Kerr-Mudding the point>
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.
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 <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:[Lots sipped]
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:
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.
Semantics.
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.
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.
Agreed.
Blatant evasion. Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, I
would say your working definitions are conversational non-starters.
Thanks.
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.
<snip remaining to avoid Kerr-Mudding the point>
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?
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:54:35 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:46 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: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'.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 05:43:43 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>[Lots sipped]
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:
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.
Semantics.
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.
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.
Agreed.
Blatant evasion. Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, I
would say your working definitions are conversational non-starters.
Thanks.
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.
<snip remaining to avoid Kerr-Mudding the point>
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?
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?
On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:54:35 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:46 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote: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'.
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 05:43:43 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>[Lots sipped]
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:
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.
Semantics.
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.
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.
Agreed.
Blatant evasion. Given Harshman's expressed lack of enthusiasm, I
would say your working definitions are conversational non-starters.
Thanks.
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.
<snip remaining to avoid Kerr-Mudding the point>
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?
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?
Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the laryngeal nerve that way?
The process operative in either of these two options belongs in a
separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe
was caused.
Category A: *why* the universe is, or *who/what* caused the universe
Category B: processes/mechanisms as to *how* the universe was caused
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:33:16 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2026 09:54:35 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 24/02/2026 7:46 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:As you give me a binary choice, I'll have to plump for 2. I guess
On Mon, 23 Feb 2026 05:43:43 -0500
jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 20:32:29 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>[Lots sipped]
On 22/02/2026 8:07 pm, jillery wrote:
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.
Semantics.
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.
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.
Thanks.
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.
<snip remaining to avoid Kerr-Mudding the point>
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?
'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.
I see you want a god to do some things, but not be responsible for others.
Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the
laryngeal nerve that way?
On 2/19/26 9:03 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
The process operative in either of these two options belongs in a
separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the
universe was caused.
Category A: *why* the universe is, or *who/what* caused the universe
Category B: processes/mechanisms as to *how* the universe was caused
You are assuming the universe was caused. I question that assumption.
On 26/02/2026 8:47 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[left some out]
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:33:16 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
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
a psychological need to "have a god [to give them] some comfort", that
this is a character weakness, and one which creates a bias that takes
away objectivity when considering scientific evidence?
Again, a genuine question, intended to clarify and/or move us past a simplistic characterisation.
I see you want a god to do some things, but not be responsible for others.
Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the
laryngeal nerve that way?
Could there be other reasons why I have not yet responded to your question?
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:17:56 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:47 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[left some out]
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:33:16 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
What's your take on the desperate attempts by creationists to findAs 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.
anything in science that's not fully worked out yet to support them?
Sounds like you are channeling Liza now!
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
a psychological need to "have a god [to give them] some comfort", that
this is a character weakness, and one which creates a bias that takes
away objectivity when considering scientific evidence?
Again, a genuine question, intended to clarify and/or move us past a
simplistic characterisation.
I dunno, maybe because you don't want to look at it? Do you often
I see you want a god to do some things, but not be responsible for others. >>>
Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the
laryngeal nerve that way?
Could there be other reasons why I have not yet responded to your question? >>
respond to a question with a question? Maybe you don't make clear any misgivings you may (or may not) have about creationism?
On 2026-02-26 5:48 a.m., Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026 18:17:56 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 26/02/2026 8:47 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:[left some out]
On Wed, 25 Feb 2026 13:33:16 +1100
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 25/02/2026 6:05 am, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
What's your take on the desperate attempts by creationists to findAs 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.
anything in science that's not fully worked out yet to support them?
Sounds like you are channeling Liza now!
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
a psychological need to "have a god [to give them] some comfort", that
this is a character weakness, and one which creates a bias that takes
away objectivity when considering scientific evidence?
Again, a genuine question, intended to clarify and/or move us past a
simplistic characterisation.
Perhaps 'ELIZA'?
I dunno, maybe because you don't want to look at it? Do you often
I see you want a god to do some things, but not be responsible for
Do you have a non-evolutionary explanation for why god designed the >>>>>> laryngeal nerve that way?
others.
Could there be other reasons why I have not yet responded to your
question?
respond to a question with a question? Maybe you don't make clear any
misgivings you may (or may not) have about creationism?
What's your take on the desperate attempts by creationists to find
anything in science that's not fully worked out yet to support them?
On Sun, 22 Feb 2026 08:06:51 -0800, Mark Isaak <specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:
On 2/16/26 5:43 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 8 Feb 2026 18:51:44 -0600, sticks <wolverine01@charter.net>
Christian Anfinsen (1916-1995), Professor of Chemistry at Harvard and
winner of the 1972 Nobel Prize in Chemistry:
"I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there
exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and >>>> knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place."
I struggle to understand the rationale behind atheism; I mean atheism
in the strict sense of completely rejecting the existence of any kind
of God.[1]
[...]
[1] I'm using "atheist" in the
generally understood sense of rejecting the very possibility of God
and "agnostic" in the generally understood sense of thinking we simply
haven't enough evidence to come to a rational decision (and might not
ever able to get enough evidence).
What about Bertrand Russell's analogy to believing that there is a
teapot in the orbit of Saturn?
Can you point me to anyone who has presented rational arguments for a
teapot in the orbit of Saturn? Can you even point me to a single
person who believes there is teapot in the orbit of Saturn?
Would you classify Russell as an atheist
because he cannot rule out a god, but considers the evidence too low to
be worth mentioning?
And there's another, emotional, rationale for atheism. Someone looks at
all the evil done in the name of God and reasons that anyone eliminating
belief in God would be a better person.
So do you think the ToE should be eliminated because people used it to justify eugenic? Or that Einstein's ideas should be eliminated because
they were used to kill thousands of innocent civilians in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki?
On 20/02/2026 1:25 pm, MarkE wrote:Once again, please explain how answering who/what caused the universe
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal >>>>>> chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by
fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material >>>> agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light" >>>>
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and
*How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise >>>> that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens >>>> its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning.
I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how" contributes
here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And "non-material"
or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of course that
doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established that it has
any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually
exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of options,
namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
The paragraph above was sloppy; to clarify and expand:
The process operative in either of these two options belongs in a
separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe
was caused.
Category A: *why* the universe is, or *who/what* caused the universe
Category B: processes/mechanisms as to *how* the universe was caused
How useful this is is a another question. Establishing working
definitions is a necessary first step.
On Fri, 20 Feb 2026 16:03:45 +1100, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/02/2026 1:25 pm, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 3:15 pm, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/18/26 7:11 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/02/2026 4:14 am, John Harshman wrote:I'm not sure what your distinction between "why" and "how" contributes >>>> here. Your "why" is merely a vague form of "how". And "non-material"
On 2/17/26 4:23 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/02/2026 1:14 am, John Harshman wrote:
On 2/17/26 4:39 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/02/2026 04:08, John Harshman wrote:Ah, the get out of infinite regress free card. The bottom turtle. >>>>>>>>
"aseity"?
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/aseity
Are you suggesting that any hypothesis that terminates the causal >>>>>>> chain is invalid in principle? The alternative of an infinite
regress is effectively no explanation.
No, I'm suggesting that you attempt to create an uncaused cause by >>>>>> fiat. It's just as much no explanation as infinite regress.
Let's attempt establish some definitions and categories. Here's my
suggestion; happy to refine it.
The universe exists (or so it seems). What is the explanation?
There are two categories of explanation, which I would define as:
1. Natural - governed by physical law, with no action by non-material >>>>> agency
"How" options include:
1.a. Terminates in "brute fact" or necessity, e.g. eternal quantum
vacuum, multiverse, mathematical structure
1.b. Infinite regress, e.g. cyclical universe
2. Supernatural - not governed by physical law, possibly involving
action by non-material agency
"How" options include:
2.a. God, e.g. "And God said, 'Let there be light," and there was light" >>>>>
2.b. An impersonal non-material agent/causality
Note the category distinction between *Why* is there a universe? and >>>>> *How* did the universe come to be?
To be sure, 2.a. does not give us information as to the "how" (at
least not in Genesis 1:3). But avoid the category error and recognise >>>>> that here we are talking why and not how.
You may find 2.a. personally unsatisfying, but that in no way lessens >>>>> its validity. To discount it as a possible explanation of the "why"
because its "how" is inaccessible to science is fallacious reasoning. >>>>
or "supernatural" has no clear meaning either. Now of course that
doesn't lessen its validity, but you haven't established that it has
any validity either.
Definitions do need extra care here. I'll reframe it as two mutually
exclusive categories of explanation as to *why* the universe is (or,
*what* caused the universe):
1. The action of a non-material* person**
2. Everything else
The process used in either category is a separate category of options,
namely explanations of *how* the universe was caused.
The paragraph above was sloppy; to clarify and expand:
The process operative in either of these two options belongs in a
separate category of options, namely explanations of *how* the universe
was caused.
Category A: *why* the universe is, or *who/what* caused the universe
Category B: processes/mechanisms as to *how* the universe was caused
How useful this is is a another question. Establishing working
definitions is a necessary first step.
Once again, please explain how answering who/what caused the universe
informs *why* the universe, without presuming motives of who/what.
Thanks in advance.
<snip remainder to avoid Kerr-Mudding the question>
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 59 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 03:51:18 |
| Calls: | 810 |
| Files: | 1,287 |
| D/L today: |
4 files (10,048K bytes) |
| Messages: | 203,128 |