Your screed is so far off the mark I am amazed.  Have you even read the question Patton asked and my response or are you just looking for an excuse to throw dung my way?

An explanation by causal history is a good way to account for things.  If one wishes to explain how man got to the moon for example citing cause and effect is far superior to citing natural laws or accounting for data etc.

Eye Witness testimony is also good.

Corroboration is another.

Consistency with observation of how the world works is yet another.

Callum if these are the tools of a quality argument, then which one of these do materialists use to explain the source of human thought and morality?  If it is the brain and its chemical and electrical function and that in turn was supposedly derived by evolutionary processes acting to form new proteins and developmental pathways (forgetting for the moment that evolution does not account for either), and if life in turn was formed from non-life by chemic processes (once again ignoring the complete and utter absence of a proper account for this), where in this process does matter derive something completely different from what existed before , namely thought, and what derived it?

Are you suggesting that I am not actually thinking at all? Are you suggesting that I am simply being fooled by the regular chemo-electrical processes in by brain into thinking I am thinking?

We know of no beginnings without a cause, agreed?  Just as I asked IamMe, are you sincere in your implied objection or are you also being argumentative?

Callum why should we also argue over those things we generally agree?




If I thought the point important I would provide a strong argument, otherwise I would either move on or cede the point to you.

With all due respect, Patton did not ask me to give him an example of where he is not challenging barney so I won't address that point.  My response to Patton was provided as an example of the kind of subtle bashes one regularly encounters from barney.  They are indeed not severe enough to raise the ire of the moderators but they are far beyond what I consider "civil speech".  Some people are able to look beyond it and things don't escalate while others raise the bar until it goes out of control.

I have no intention of helping Patton "locate" poor behavior.

Just wondering, Patton where is the civility in this comment?

I generally agree with Patton when he implies that the list is somewhat incomplete.  It seems good when one wishes to explain observations in the present but incomplete when one is interested in historical events.

I recognize that you made that request but the explanation is long and it is also widely available on the web so I asked if you seriously doubt that beginnings must have causes and if so if you would explain why or if not are you simply being argumentative?  You didn't answer so I didn't ask again, I just did not respond to your follow up post.

In any case, I am not inclined to show that beginnings must have causes unless you offer a strong argument that they don't.  I don't consider "the possibility" that the universe's beginning did not have a cause a very strong argument and I am happy to leave it at that.

Anyone is capable of making slight errors from time to time.  I certainly make my share and I suspect you do too.  The article is several months old now and revisions have been made to the original results.  Have you reviewed the revised results?  If so do you still find errors?

Here is the revised report: A Case Study with ev

More on the theory of the computations.

Measuring the Cost of Success


Probability applies to chance events.  Purposeful design is not chance so it is not that one can't determine the probability of purposeful design, it just makes no sense to speak of it that way. There is uncertainty in the results or performance of a design against the intended function but it makes no sense to speak of the probability of design.  This is why the method is "Chance Elimination".  One looks at the probability that the event could have been generated by the set of chance hypotheses but not the design hypotheses.

The concept of a UPB acknowledges that there are limits on the amount of resources available to act on chance and generate chance outcomes.  The idea or claim that there is no UPB is equivalent to claiming there is no limit on resources and this is simply false.

Sure,

I just went to the first page in a random post initiated by barney and in his forth post he is baiting and insulting me and my beliefs clearly to poison the well and discredit me and my arguments.

I highlighted the offending phases for you:

Oh, I'm sorry.  Did you write something you thought was profound that I missed?  In your last post you said you believed there is a real possibility that the universe began without any cause at all.  I find it interesting that you hold that belief , but not so interesting that I would ask you to explain why you hold that belief a second time.

Quiet in the sense that the personal attacks and derogatory comments of some posters don't escalate much since many poster's look past barney's subtle bashes.

If character assassination is not barney's motive in your opinion, I guess I should conclude that it's OK to attack members when the purpose is to discredit the argument or the posters beliefs?

If known material processes are incapable of accomplishing a particular event are we prevented from inferring materialism?

I don't see that life in itself is sufficient to explain thought, morality, logic or free will either.

You continue to want to make a comparison to alternatives as if you believe your alternative represents a better explanation.  Although life from non-life is part of the issue you face, it is not the focus of the issue I raise which is that thought itself does not have a material explanation even if we were to grant life from non-life.