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.

Because of the boundary condition. For example if I choose to be as moral as possible given a boundary condition of murdering people I don't like, how is that not being best? And how can you judge what is best other than by using morality?

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.

Don't have much time but there are a number of factual errors in the OP:

 

 

 

This is not what junk DNA is. Essentially they refer to non-coding regions (though with the discovery of sRNA this has to be expanded somewhat). Genes that are silent (in a given tissue) are not junk DNA.

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 less moral than possible, even if he has a good reason, then that is not moral perfection.

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?

So show him even one philosopher of religion who disagrees and you prove one of his statements wrong.

 

And if we're talking about the Christian version of morality, you have Jesus' word that love fulfills all the law.

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.

Hi ,

 

Can anyone help me with drawing a scale plan ?

 

I basically have a free hand sketch of a room, (crime scene) and measured dimensions in cm on it. It contains a window, cupboard, walls, and a piece of evidence in middle of the room with measurements, the position of the evidence is shown by measuring two points from a baseline of the room(triangulation method) But I dont know how to make a scale for it

 

I looked on the internet but cannot find anything useful. Has anyone done something similar or same for thier forensic module? Please help

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.

Let's face it, school uniforms will never happen.

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.

 

Because these goods are competing, it's logically impossible for God to achieve a 10 in both A and B simultaneously, as we've agreed. Perhaps, then, God achieves, say, an 8 in both, and this is the maximal expression of both goods logically possible.

 

But he is an 8 in A, not a 10, so he's not perfect in A -- he's just exceedingly good at it.

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.

Hurley's A Concise Introduction to Logic, 9th edition, defines it as "appeal to unqualified authority" and says it "occurs when the cited authority or witness lacks credibility." Also, I believe ydoaPs cited Schellenberg, who has a DPhil from Oxford in a field of philosophy of religion. I'm sure he can find us other sources as well, although the point is not immediately relevant to this discussion.

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.

There cannot be a double standard here, since I apply no standard in this discussion -- I am forbidden from moderating it by our own moderation policy, as I am already involved. If you do believe violations of forum policy have occurred, feel free to report them.

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.

Really? Who predicted it? Any DNA that is not expressed phenotypically cannot contribute to its own conservation and so would tend to be weeded out over the generations. Why is there so much junk in genomes?

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.

I didn't say anything about what types of mutations will happen. Only that the predictive power of evolution theory stopped short of "Oh, by the way, now that you chaps are prying open DNA, we'll tell you what you'll find inside, because our theory tells us how genomes have come to contain whatever it is that they contain. By the way, you'll find gobs of DNA that is not expressed phenotypically." For a theory of genetic inheritance and genetic modification over time, evolution theory hardly stuck its neck out to predict what genetic sequencing and analysis would discover.

Indeed, hardly a scientific approach, and certainly nothing to be too impressed about.

The only design theory I subscribe to is the normal scientific understanding of ontogeny, the unfolding of the adult "designed" into the zygote. I think evolution similarly is the unfolding of the life cycle of an organism. The findings coming out of genetic sequencing and analysis support that contention, because the findings correspond to what is found among the generations of cells in the body of a complex organism.

No argument here.

For the record, I am NOT a fundamentalist Creationist, ID advocate. I don't question that the fossils tell a story of common descent. But the rules governing the process of descent I do not believe are limited to those proposed by evolutionists.

Yes those proposed by evolutionist are quite restrictive and without any clear scientific justification.

I suppose it could have. But isn't it the job of science to say more than, "That's just the way it is" ?

Absolutely it is.

And what might be the function of neuromuscular genes in a creature more primitive than a sponge? -- for the reference, see my original post.

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.

The comparison is between the descent of species on Earth and the descent of cell types in metazoan bodies. Ancestral cell types in a developing body (zygote, and the toti- and pluripotent types of the early embryo) carry unexpressed genes that are needed by descendant types (liver, kidney, etc). Ancestral species also carry unexpressed genes that are needed by descendants. The developmental program in both cases is built in. That's my contention.

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?

I don't think I have that problem, but even if so, I am content to let the data determine which contender has the better bead on what's going on.

On the contrary, it seems you have a good grasp of the limitations of the current popular theory.

Physics and chemistry have done a fine job describing the workings of organisms in detail. But, yes, there are limits to those sciences' powers.

Indeed there are.

"mutation function" "fitness function" I find it amusing how Darwinians feel so free to invent new natural processes ex nihilo. It's like Hegelian metaphysics.

It is metaphysics.

Re-read the question -- it does not mention anything biological. That restriction is only in your imagination. The question immediately following it only applies if you answered no to the previous. Also, no cycles are mentioned. Would you prefer if I asked it slightly differently?

1) Can local entropy of a system at least temporarily decrease given energy inputs, or can it not? If not, how do you explain the entropy inside a refrigerator box when it is switched on?

 

HINT: The answer is "yes", and there is nothing misleading about it other than that you don't like the answer.

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 .

Are you just wasting my time? Alright, but first tell me: do you think the entropy of a plant is greater or lesser than that of its material components (air/water/land)? I noticed you avoid answering clear simple questions as much as possible. Is that because if you answer either way your answer will harm your argument? I think that just shows you have a weak argument.

Equal or greater. Plant growth is largely a deterministic process carefully managed and controlled by process that follow prescriptive instruction sets.

If the entropy is zero, then surely the entropy must have changed to a lower value from that of random information? Also, what exactly is this formulation you speak of? You aren't confusing the formula for total entropy and the one for change in entropy, are you?

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.

So you say the randomly created string has a high entropy but elsewhere you say changing it to a deterministically created string doesn't change the entropy? I don't think that makes sense.

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.

OK, created or imported into the system from the environment work equally well for my purposes. I'm not asking about useful information, I'm asking about information in this question. OK, let me demostrate with an example:

String Set 1: ABCDE ABCDE ABCDE

String Set 2: ABCDE ABCDE ABCDF

#1 is an example of a repeated string, analogous to copies correctly made by a deterministic process. #2 is similar, but contains one different string, analogous to deterministic copies with occasional mutation. Using your measure of information, the second set has more information than the first. Therefore information was created (imported, if you prefer).

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.

No. I gave the example, of eyes, and mentioned that you would complain that you cannot see how evolution could be responsible, which I was correct about. There's plenty of good literature about the evolution of eyes, but it is too complicated for you. But I also included much simpler examples of new function, and mentioned that you'd find the opposite reason as being a fault, ie it is too simple a change. You're welcome to prove me right on that aspect as well.

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.

As for whether it is known to have been derived from the other, I don't see how that is relevant. It seems just a ploy to limit our options to include only function that happened in the last ~50 years and then only while a researcher was looking at it under a microscope, or something like that. What matters to me is that since the changes are slight then it is extremely likely to have happened via known processes of mutation and so should be considered to have happened like all the others we've seen absent any evidence to the contrary (which you haven't and almost certainly can't offer).

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.

Again, if a tree fell in a forest and no one was there to see it do we assume the fallen tree and damaged vegetation were poofed into existence by some god or do we say the tree fell just like any other tree we've seen fall? Or are you saying that unless someone saw the tree fall they can't say it fell via deduction from other things they know and should instead assume some intelligent agent planted a fallen tree there?

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.

Does it matter?

Of course it matters.

Surely you know how to calculate the odds of randomly creating specific mutations. Simply from a statistical point of view if something must have happened then you should say it happened, even if it was not observed. Alternately, there's no reason to believe anything you say because either you haven't observed it or its subjective. You do realize we have a pretty good understanding of reality and of maths, don't you? Enough so that someone observing something is frequently less credible than a theoretical calculation of what must have happened?

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?

Or are you saying that because researchers have made 2 amino acid substitutions that therefore it is impossible or unlikely for a random process to change those same 2 amino acids? If not then how is your question relevant?

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.

Anyhow, the answer to your question is "yes". The mutations happened in nature in one species, and the researchers also added the mutation to another to verify that those specific mutations were responsible.

But you don't know how the changes occurred in nature..... I see.

Another relevant example is that a 1 nucleotide mutation, [ce]GAG -> GTG[/ce], is the cause for sickle-cell anemia. The codon mutation causes all the Glu residues a certain position being subbed out for Val's which totally changes the quaternary structure of hemoglobin. Turns out sickle cell was a favorable trait in west Africa at one time because it made one more immune to malaria which would result in a shorter lifespan than sickle-cell. That's just a one nucleotide mutation.

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.

Very well. Let's consider the possibility that they are competing goods.

 

 

Hm. I think I'm beginning to understand your point, so let me double-check before I continue.

 

You're saying that there may be multiple competing goods God attempts to maximize. As such, it is impossible to fully maximize any one good, because that would cause the neglect of another. Because God can only achieve what is possible, he achieves as much moral perfection as is possible without harming the other goods. Were he to disregard other goods (such as love, for example) he'd be able to achieve greater moral perfection, but those other goods are important and possibly (but not necessarily) more important than moral perfection.

 

Have I got that right?

Yes this is one point.

Not exactly. It's only a fallacy when the authority is not a legitimate authority on the particular subject.

 

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

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.

The information we perceive via our senses is essentially patterns of photons, sound waves etc. These signals are being picked up and manipulated by the brain. Is this process associated with an increase amount of energy reaching the brain? I don't mean increased metabolism therefore more energy, what I mean is does information (of any sort) carry energy?

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.

More generally, if we input information and data into a computer, does its internal energy increase? If we input meaningful information into a system, does its entropy decrease?

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.

As has already been pointed out, Divine Love is an aspect of Moral Perfection. I know of no philosopher of religion who denies this.

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.

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.

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.

Then they're not competing or exclusive values, and so this isn't relevant.

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're not exactly doing the best job of clarifying. If I am not understanding you properly, please explain in more detail.

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.

If we have another attribute of value that is mutually exclusive, and God values that higher, He will by necessity not be able to achieve moral perfection. For example, if love were a mutually exclusive but more desirable attribute, God could become perfect in love, but would be logically unable to be morally perfect. Correct? (This is not to say that love is indeed more desirable or mutually exclusive; feel free to substitute in any other property you believe meets those requirements.)

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?

If this is true, then you're saying the argument fails in the case that God is unable to be morally perfect. This is quite true, because the argument rests on the premise of God's moral perfection, and removing that makes the argument fail.

I believe it fails either way, since one must accept the logical reality that God cannot accomplish the impossible.

I asked a yes/no question, and the answer you gave seemed to be the no. Care to answer again then?

1) Can local entropy decrease given energy inputs, or can it not? If not, how do you explain plants growing?

Please note that growing is not a complete cycle.

 

It seems to me that you'd rather not answer clearly on this one, because "yes" would undermine your arguments but "no" would profess ignorance of basic thermodynamics. So you're trying to change the question, as you have done so many times before. This time you're not getting away from it. There's no cycle in the question. Answer my question not your own please.

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.

No, growth involves taking mass from outside sources and incorporating into self. The plant is not making its own atoms, it is taking them from its environment. If you don't think that this is reducing entropy, that is equivalent to claiming that the entropy of these atoms in plant form is the same or greater than the same atoms in the environment (eg after the plant decays). Is this what you are saying? If not, then you agree with me that it is less.

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.

It doesn't quite answer the question. I'd like to see specifically how the entropy is measured.

Since the probability of a deterministic process is 1.0 entropy change by definition is zero based on the formulation.

But taking your claim to the logical conclusion, then you are also claiming that the entropy in DNA does not increase when it is randomly changed, because when changed back its entropy is the same as it was before and therefore they are of equivalent entropy. While I don't accept that, it still does negate your claim of information entropy being a problem since all the strings have equivalent entropy per your claim.

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.

So information can be created/imported, as you say, so it is not a problem that information increases, qualitatively. Now had I let you get away with answering my question in a qualitative manner rather than a qualitative manner. If you wish to turn around and use numbers, then please answer my question again, qualitatively this time.

3) Can information be created by living organisms, or can it not? If not, then how do you explain the effects of occasional mutation of a bacterium using your measure of information, I = - log(P) rather than made-up nonsense?

I think you'll find that your idea of "10^-30 bits of information per cycle with a cycle time of 15 years" is completely baseless in the context of my question.

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.

There's plenty of examples of new function. Your eyes for example. However, I was under the impression that you wanted new function that could very clearly be seen to be the result of evolutionary processes, because you don't seem to accept the ones that would have taken longer to evolve than can be directly observed.

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.

In addition, you have previously complained about other new functions I mentioned as being similar to the original function. You're trying to demand something impossible

I am only asking for what the theory posits. Does the theory posit the impossible?

Now I've given also examples of riboswitches which can detect different chemicals with just one noteable change. http://www.pdb.org/pdb/static.do?p=education_discussion/molecule_of_the_month/pdb130_1.html Is the detection of one chemical (adenine) over another (guinine) not new function?

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?

Another example, it takes only a few mutations to convert soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) from binding to NO to binding to O2. http://www.jbc.org/content/early/2010/03/15/jbc.M109.098269.abstract

Were these mutations directed by the researchers or did they occur by natural selection?

You said "so argument seven is poorly constructed and your argument fails", but argument seven is part of the OP, and is not part of my argument.

I said argument seven is poor constructed and I said your argument fails. They are both true. I am sorry I was unclear.

Hmm. I think one might argue that love is a part of moral perfection, not a separate attribute, but the specifics aren't entirely relevant.

Some may think that, and it would remain little more than an unjustified opinion unless it can be logically established.

Here's what I meant by my argument: Suppose God does value love above moral perfection, and suppose these are competing properties. God takes certain actions that demonstrate his perfect love but are morally imperfect -- he can't achieve both at once because this is logically impossible. If this is the case, then God is not morally perfect.

What if he values them equally and is perfect in both love and morality?

However, the OP stipulates a morally perfect God. You're essentially saying "but that's not a God anyone believes in," or perhaps "God doesn't have to be morally perfect to be exceedingly good -- he may just be good at other things."

I believe you mischaracterize what I am saying.

I think Anselm would say so. Anselm (archbishop of Canterbury a thousand years ago) posited that God is perfect, and defined this to mean that God is that than which a greater cannot be conceived. Using this argument, he was able to describe God's attributes: omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, eternal, unchanging, and so on. Now, he meant it differently than I think you do. He didn't say God is perfect in every way. For example, one might ask whether God is a perfect liar, but to Anselm lying represents a lack of power. To lie is to imply that you cannot get away with the truth, or that you are of weakened moral character, and so the perfect ability to lie is not perfection at all, but a weakness.

 

So Anselm would say it is quite possible for God to be perfect, but that does not require that he is perfect at everything.

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.

The main problem is, from where this low entropy functional information is coming from or what is the source of this low entropy information. As you said the low entropy information may be coming from the human mind but how do we testify it and also irrespective of whether it comes from human genetic engineers, aliens or from some other things there may be a universal physical low entropy information source so the claim of design advocates can only survive and make sense only if one provides a way to testify that there is indeed a universal physical low entropy information which helps in the process of desigining novel functional forms. This is the way I see it.

 

Otherwise it just doesn't make any sense to say that predictions of human engineers capable of designing novel forms from scratch also accounts for the origin of prior existing functional desings.

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.

My argument? It's not my argument; I've only heard of it when ydoaPs posted it.

Did you not make the argument that omnipotence implies the ability to anything?

If one defines goods as competing and mutually exclusive, then, maximizing them would indeed be logically impossible.

I don't recall defining all goods as competing, but logically it is possible that some goods are competing.

However, God as defined in the argument is morally perfect, and His moral perfection would be undermined if He valued anything else above moral perfection.

If God were both morally perfect and loving, how could one establish that moral perfection is valued above love?

That is to say, one cannot be morally perfect if one allows morally bad things to happen but also has the power to stop them. Perhaps there is some other unknown value that is greater than moral perfection that God seeks to achieve above moral perfection -- but then he is not morally perfect. He is perfect in whatever other value that is.

Is it logically possible to be perfect in every way (within the bounds of what is possible)?

It cannot come "at a cost of something of greater net value", since God is omnipotent and can achieve anything. Should maximal moral goodness of all humanity prevent God from achieving his ultimate goals, He is not omnipotent.

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 2008 and 2009 are not included in that graph. I'm not even sure if those papers exist. Second of all, I'm pretty sure that not all reconstructions use Bristlecone Pine tree ring data, and yet they all seem to support each other. This article in the Guardian suggests that Mann's data although tainted in the 1999 reconstruction, was generally fairly accurate. And furthermore, those papers were published quite some time ago and I don't think they really can go back and change the data they used.

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.