cypress

So then absolute perfection is a misnomer, though we can logically envision it, it is logically impossible because competing goods is a logical possibility and absolute perfection cannot exist with competing goods. Do I have this right?

There is something more perfect, something better than best? I find that illogical.

The reason why I objected to your example is because in it you simply redefined what it means for you to be moral. The case I argue involves competing goods of value that would cause God to allow others to behave less than morally perfect for a time while maintaining the highest moral standard for oneself and even for those who fail to meet it.. I feel post 43 addresses the substance of 41.

Huh? I did not define morality. Certainly not that morality is what ever God does.

Your example may work if you were the authority who established morality; in other words, if your were God. I am not the judge of what is best with respect to morality which raises yet another potential problem with YodaPs' argument since it presumes to be capable of judging the best choices of a perfectly moral God.

Ah, sorry, my mistake. Yes, this is common in drafting and engineering surveys. Select a paper size then decide the largest dimension from the sketch. On that basis select a scale, one meter actual = 5 cm for example so that the drawing fits on the paper in the desired size. Next draw a plan view ( a view from the top). Elevation views (side views) are also drawn if needed to show detail. What part of this process are you having difficulty with? as you can tell I am having trouble understanding the precise nature of your issue. If the difficulty is in translating the measurements from radian to cartesian coordinates, draw on your plan view first the two reference points using the scale determined above and so that they have the correct relation to each other and to magnetic north (usually the top of your paper). Then use a protractor and drafting compass and scale to find the intersections from your points. If the measurements are in three dimensions and your reference points are not on the same height plane, then you will have to use trigonometry to generate references and result vectors on a common plane. If this is your issue I can help you with some drafting short cuts. Once your references are on a common plane, only one measurement from the reference is needed.

Perhaps the error is yours. You seem to have misread the context of the OP's illustration. the first paragraph referred to what is traditionaly called "junk DNA" the second paragraph described silent genes in particular cells. The third paragraph suggested that one possibility is that "Junk DNA" may be in a sense similar to silent genes in that this junk is actively conserved feed-stock for future needs. I welcome the OP's elaboration if I have this wrong.

If God chooses to be as moral as possible given a boundary condition, how is that not being best? How can one be better than best? This would not prove his statement wrong. He said that he knows of no philosopher of religion ... His statement is a fallacy because he treated his belief and the opinion of others as if it was an invariant truth when it has not been established as such. I don't recall seeing any stipulation in the opening post that we are speaking of Christian morality.

Triangulation measurements are from two baseline points as you indicate. The traditional method involves a distance and angle from each of the two points. The angle is generally relative to magnetic north. This method allows for measurements to be made quickly using a compass and a measuring tape.

Umm, no, School uniforms have existed in most public schools in the greater New Orleans and Baton Rouge areas of Louisiana since the early 1990's. I was opposed to it then and I still am, but it remains and there is no rebellion. It seems the majority of parents and teachers (those who vote for the school board members) approve and so the uniform policy persists.

If due to logical restrictions and constraints, it is not it is not possible to exceed your measure of 8, then 10 is an impossible standard, and 8 is best and thus perfection. It makes no sense to compare achievement to a standard that is impossible. Why, if it is not relevant to the discussion, do you persist with it? It is relevant because I responded to YodaPS's argument by pointing out that it is a logical fallacy and only an example of other possible competing goods. If it is not a logical fallacy, then I may have some obligation to address it in some other fashion I will drop it when you do as a signal that it is not relevant. Clearly there is a disagreement over the form of this logical fallacy. The wiki page addresses this by discussing it as informal logic . If YodaPs meant to say that a single authority he cited previously holds a particular belief, then he should not have said: "As has already been pointed out, Divine Love is an aspect of Moral Perfection. I know of no philosopher of religion who denies this. They are not in competition as one falls out of the other. You might as well say the speed of light is in competition with Maxwell's equations." He states this as if it is an absolute fact. It is at best an opinion a group of people hold but it is not an established invariant truth. I don't recall accusing you of moderating or of holding to a double standard. I did quip that I hope one was not being applied.

A good question. Why though, should we presume to know it is junk? Even by your implied idea, this would not strictly be junk since it may instead be feed-stock for future teleological processes. As such, some sort of functional system must preserve the inventory, since random mutation and selection is known to weed it out useless systems since it requires more energy to preserve it and there is no reproductive advantage to inefficiency. Modern biological experiments seem to confirm that non-functional systems are quickly eliminated, so it does seem clear that the traditional theory involving mutation and natural selection is a failure as an explanation for observed diversity, and by extension, these DNA sequences that don't have known function though are conserved. Indeed, hardly a scientific approach, and certainly nothing to be too impressed about. No argument here. Yes those proposed by evolutionist are quite restrictive and without any clear scientific justification. Absolutely it is. I don't know of any. Odd that it would be preserved given construct of the modern synthesis. You seem to be on to something. There are examples that confirm this but there are many many examples that seem to go against it. Do we conclude that those examples where the development program is apparently not built in, where there are not unexpressed genes obviously present in ancestral forms are therefore not related? On the contrary, it seems you have a good grasp of the limitations of the current popular theory. Indeed there are. It is metaphysics.

The answer depends on how one defines "a system" and that is why a "yes or no" answer would be misleading. Traditionally the system includes inputs and outputs, as you have implied, and thus the answer is as I have now given it twice. This is now the third time: Entropy change of a system is zero or greater when physical processes only are in play for the situations you describe when all parts of the system and inputs and outputs are included . Equal or greater. Plant growth is largely a deterministic process carefully managed and controlled by process that follow prescriptive instruction sets. The change in entropy is zero for deterministic processes. Absolute entropy remains at its previous value. I m not confused, but you seem to be. Reread my previous statement. Reread my statement. It seems that you continually attempt to change what I am saying. Entropy law defines the direction of flow for system events that are guided by physical processes. Random processes will drive ordered systems to the state of highest probability over time. A single macro event driven by a random process involving large numbers of discrete micro events will result in a net entropy change of zero or greater. A deterministic process has only one outcome and a probability of 1 so no change in entropy occurs. Here again I speak of change in entropy while you wish to imply I speak of absolute entropy values. Random process can import information, I have stipulated this months ago and repeated that in the previous post. You have added nothing to this understanding. I do not see where information was created. I am gratified that even you can see the weakness in your arguments to the point that you are able to predict the response. The scientific process requires testable and repeatable demonstrations of what is posited, not watered down versions, that demonstrate something else, but that those who have drunk the cool-aid blindly accept. If it is "extremely likely to have happened" then the precursors will have happened millions of times over in experimental biology over the past 50 years. . Probability theory and entropy considerations on the other hand inform us that it does not happen by the posited processes. Other processes must be involved. When one sees a fallen tree in a forest one develops a hypothesis for how it may have gotten that way and then sets up a repeatable experiment to test the hypothesis. When the experiments confirm the hypothesis, one declares with a high degree of confidence that they understand how fallen trees become so. Of course it matters. We are debating How it happened not that it happened. Once again you commit a logical fallacy. Are there different rules for staff members on this site? It is relevant because the debate centers around the process, not the fact of its existence. Since the researchers directed the mutations, and since design directed mutations are specifically excluded from your posit, one cannot conclude that random mutation and natural selection is able to accomplish what this experiment accomplished. It is apples and oranges to make this claim, and yet another logical fallacy. But you don't know how the changes occurred in nature..... I see. This example was recently discussed in the immediate prior several posts. Sickle cell trait provides a slight advantage to those who contract malaria because malaria further weakens the red blood cell to the point that the spleen detects and destroys the infected cell prior to the catastrophic and often fatal anemia and seizure induced oxygen deprivation precipitated by the active immune system's final attempt to eradicate the out of control replicating parasite pathogen. However full sickle cell anemia is more detrimental to replication than even malaria. Regardless of the path one takes sickle cell trait seems to be yet another evolutionary dead end that provides some modest adaptive advantage while in the process severely destroying a slightly redundant functional process. The theory of evolution posits extended evolutionary pathways made up of these observed single and two step adaptations of functional systems leading to novel form and function. While there are a modest number of examples of singe, and two step adaptations, there are zero examples of even four step extensions leading to the events posited by the theory. The predictions made by this theory are failing in biological experimentation.

Yes this is one point. I believe your link is incorrect about the logical fallacy. It is far more commonly understood the way wiki describes it. Since it is possible that the authority may be incorrect, it is a fallacy to imply that the authority's claims makes it true. In addition, YodaPs failed to established that this unnamed group of is even an authority so he failed even by your weaker measure. I hope that double standards are not being applied here.

Strictly speaking, information is not physical at all. It is only formal. Information may be conveyed and stored via low entropy signals on high entropy carriers including energy waves, but the information is independent of the media it is transported and stored on. Since information is not energy the information itself does not increase energy of the storage device. However if the information is imported into the device on an energy carrier signal then the energy source clearly causes the internal energy of the device to increase. Likewise the thermal entropy of the physical device does not change when information is imported, however the entropy of the stored information may well change when additional information is imported.

It has been established here that some philosophers of religion claim that love is an aspect of morality. I have seen no formal proof that it is actually so. Appealing to authority is a logical fallacy. Whether love and morality are or are not in competition is not the issue. Love was merely used as an example of one of any number of possible competing goods. Since it is possible that some good of value (including love) could be in competition with morality, this is sufficient for my argument.

You seem to be trying to change my argument. Since it is possible that morality and love are competing goods, they continue to be in competition, in the sense that one can only be maximized at the expense of the other, regardless of how they are valued. Earlier I spoke of the goods being in competition, not the value of the goods. You suggested I am disagreeing with the stipulation that a benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient God would necessarily have a perfect sense of moral imperatives and perfectly behave according to them. I do not reject the stipulation given by the OP. Instead, I offer one logical possibility that goods are competing and perfection must be measured in consideration with what is possible. No, not correct. How can the unachievable be more perfect than the best of what is possible? Why must you stipulate god values one good to a higher degree than another? I believe it fails either way, since one must accept the logical reality that God cannot accomplish the impossible.

Originally you asked this question in context to biological processes. Now you have changed it to be generic to any single physical process step of any kind. Thermodynamic cycles include steps that have entropy of one component drop while another rises and equal or greater amount. The net change is greater or equal to zero. I don't answer the question "yes" or " no" because both answers are misleading in one way or another. Originally your question seemed to involve thermal entropy, but now you have changed the context to molecular entropy. However since biological processes follow a blueprint infused into them from their causal agent, the growth and developmental processes are now largely deterministic and do not seem to involve any significant change in probability states. When you originally asked about this case I said I would love to see you prove your claim. That challenge still stands. Since the probability of a deterministic process is 1.0 entropy change by definition is zero based on the formulation. Outcomes of random processes have probabilities less than one. At a macro scale, for random processes, over large numbers of discrete events, entropy laws identify the direction of energy flow, molecular flow and information flow, from probability states to higher probability states. Deterministic processes have the highest probability. I don't know that information can be created. I do know it can be imported. It has not been established that living organisms create information. Random processes such as mutations can import small amounts of information into sub systems, though it most often takes the form of noise that damages functional systems that are derived from this prescriptive information. This reality does not need a quantitative hypothetical example to see that what I say is correct. If you disagree and wish to demonstrate your disagreement with a real quantitative example, please do so. I note that you have yet to respond to any of my requests for quantitative examples even when quantifying it is required to support your points. I am aware that at one time in the past vertebrate eyes did not exist and now they do. The fact of this diversification is accepted, but it is not known how it occurred. You do not improve your case by stating the obvious and then speculating that a particular assumed process caused it. Instead show that your speculations have causal power. Show that they can derive the required precursors. Offer an four step evolutionary pathway. I am only asking for what the theory posits. Does the theory posit the impossible? What is the significance of this observation? Is it known that one was derived from the other? Are both functional in the same organism? Do they both serve a function? Is there an extended pathway involving this step? Were these mutations directed by the researchers or did they occur by natural selection?

I said argument seven is poor constructed and I said your argument fails. They are both true. I am sorry I was unclear. Some may think that, and it would remain little more than an unjustified opinion unless it can be logically established. What if he values them equally and is perfect in both love and morality? I believe you mischaracterize what I am saying. This is because perfect is not being used in the same sense. One cannot exist and not exist at the same time. One cannot be less than perfect and perfect at the same time.

Demonstration that human designers are capable of designing life would confirm that design, as a process, does account for life, irrespective of the designer. Human designers are quite capable of organizing input information into low entropy functional prescriptive information. It is demonstrated regularly and it is not in contradiction to physical laws. Laws of probability, of which entropy is based, are predicated on random and deterministic processes alone. The design process is contingent but is not random or deterministic and therefore don't seem to be subject to the constraints imposed on physical processes by the laws of probability.

If that is your primary conclusion, I doubt your objectivity.

Did you not make the argument that omnipotence implies the ability to anything? I don't recall defining all goods as competing, but logically it is possible that some goods are competing. If God were both morally perfect and loving, how could one establish that moral perfection is valued above love? Is it logically possible to be perfect in every way (within the bounds of what is possible)?

Tradeoffs are real are they not? Yes they are. Omnipotence means ability to achieve anything that is possible, but it does not extend to the impossible. Can an omnipotent eternal God cause himself to cease to exist? Of course not, so an omnipotent God cannot achieve the impossible. It is impossible to maximize all competing goods. Therefore, since moral goodness can be mutually exclusive of another attribute of value then there is the possibility of competing goods, so argument seven is poorly constructed and your argument fails.

I find the argument poor. Argument points seven and eight seem flawed. Why "should" a moral God seek to maximize moral goodness of a collective set of individuals if achieving a maximum in this set comes at a cost of something of greater net value? this argument seems to assume that moral goodness of a set of individuals is the ultimate goal. How can one be certain of this? Why must God exist only in worlds that are a set of S? Is a moral God restricted from entering a world that is not a member of S? Why?

Mann seems to have employed a form of conformational bias to generate a graphic that supported his view of historical and current climate change. He carefully chose a proxy that was known to de-emphasize the medieval warming and 1500-1700 little ice age. Then he chose a subset of that proxy that he could apply statistical analysis and obtain a result that closely matched his previous erroneous and discredited prior results. However because his proxies failed to continue the desired upward trend he was looking for post 1980, he simply tricked the data by dropping the proxy in favor of a a data set that supported his viewpoint better. Here is a rebuttal article pointing out Mann et al's statistical weaknesses and providing a basis as to why one should not put too much stock in Mann's reconstructions. The article generated a firestorm of discussions, much of it is available on the web at various locations.