Dan’s explanation for why people do things that are not “good” is that people are merely imperfect. This seems to be Dan's myth that explains not “good” behavior. The problem starts with the obvious question, “Why are humans imperfect?”.
Dan seems to start from the point that all humans are born “perfect”, or at least born having not having done anything not “good” yet. Somehow from that beginning, imperfection magically shows up for every single person. So, you’d think that explaining this phenomenon would be beneficial in one’s quest to label this as “reality “.
As with the Materialist/Naturalist/Darwinian worldview, the biggest hole in the philosophy is at the beginning.
There are other holes in Dan’s myth, but without an explanation for the first and biggest hole, the rest don’t matter.
Where does the imperfection come from? We know that every effect must have a cause, so what is the cause of this imperfection?
At least, in the beginning, I am going to do something that I do not often do. But in this case, I Believe that it is very important to maintain focus. Given that desire for focus, I reserve the right to abort any comments that do not specifically relate to answering the questions asked, or explaining the whole in Dan’s myth. It should go, without saying, that I am looking for an answer that lives in the realm of the objective. It should also go without saying, that I am not looking for merely a regurgitation of some unproven claim that has been made previously. I apologize for this in advance, because my normal practice is to do little or no restriction of what people say. I sincerely hope that my request will be respected, so that I don’t have to abort any comments.
15 comments:
Mysterious. Magical, Imperfection, Myth.
The comment accidentally got aborted, but it deserved an answer even though it technically didn’t meet the criteria.
Took a quick look at a couple of the comments and so far it’s not looking good. But I’ll wait until I have more time before I decide on abortion.
So far none of Dan's comments meet the established criteria. However there are some sections that will likely be excerpted and addressed.
My initial read is lots of demands that I answer questions, at least one
I’m able to read more of Dan's in bits and pieces. What I’m finding is that the comments don’t seem to bear any relationship to the content of the post.
6 comments so far, and not one that seems to attempt any kind of rational answer.
The gist seems to be that humans are just imperfect just because Dan’s subjective perception leads him to believe that myth.
There furthers seems to be some nonsense about perfection and that this inherent imperfection is apparently the exception to the rule that every effect has a cause.
I’ll dig deeper when I have a chance and am not on my phone, but it seems clear that Dan can’t prove his claim based on what I’ve seen so far.
If one accepts that humans were created by YHWH, then was this alleged imperfection something that we were created with?
"Once again, I have NOT said that humans are born perfect. I've said just the opposite: That humans are NOT perfect, not even from birth. "
This response has two problems with it.
1. I literally put the word "perfect" in quotes in the line Dan has issue with to signal that I was not using the word perfect is a woodenly literal fashion.
2. I then clarified further about the position Dan has recently articulated.
When this is where Dan starts, you know the rest isn't going to improve since he clearly lacks comprehension or has just chosen to steamroll his narrative regardless of anything else.
"We're born as imperfect humans."
Which raises the question upon which this entire post is premised. Why, what caused this imperfection? A question which hasn't been answered so far. In all honesty, the problem of Dan's myth being virtually indistinguishable from the historic Christian doctrine of a sin nature still hangs out there unaddressed as well. So far it seems like mostly a semantic distinction without a difference.
This is all that remains of the third aborted comment.
A. So what? How does kicking the can down the road by saying that it's "not a perfect world" help you? The same question still exists, why is the world not perfect? What is the cause that precipitated the effect?
B. Simply repeating the same old thing multiple times in one bullet point.
C. There is no need for a "deeper dive" into anything other than you explaining with objective proof how your myth works. You putting words into my mouth, is not helpful at all.
D-F are just more examples of Dan's inability to follow directions and demonstrate some self control. That they are off topic, and irrelevant should go without saying.
One more comment aborted for failure to follow the guidelines.
"Why is it not an option to note: That's JUST the way it is? DOES everything have a cause?"
There is the Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Law of Causation that seem to be suggesting that your bizarre cop out is not an option here in the real world.
"If you want to consider natural causes,..."
I'm not limiting the cause of something outside of the natural world to natural causes, but if you want to make an argument that your MMIM is caused by "natural causes" then provide some objective evidence that these "natural causes" directly produce this "imperfection" that you've theorized about.
"This is a deep question and I'm glad you're asking it,..."
I suspect that this is obfuscatory language for something like "It's a deep question, and the very foundation of my MMIM, but I'm not actually going to answer it. Instead I'm going to ask a bunch of questions, many of which might be irrelevant, based on a false premise, or simply off topic and bitch when you don't answer them."
One more comment aborted.
My post, my blog, my questions. You do not get to decide what the appropriate starting questions are, or how things work here. Your job is to provide objective evidence proving that your MMIM is "reality" and explaining the genesis of the imperfection.
One more aborted.
"Could we agree that the reality is that we have no authoritatively objective correct answer to this question?"
We could do that, if you would immediately stop referring to your MMIM as if it is objectively True, and treating your MMIM as if it is "reality". You've made this claim, you've represented it is Truth or "reality", so either prove your claim objectively, or modify your claim.
I know you believe yourself to be some sort of wunderkind when it comes to reading for comprehension, but continuously trying to change the subject away from you proving your claims, to asking repetitious questions about entirely different subjects, raises serious questions about your ability to read for comprehension.
One more aborted.
"To answer your questions with questions that point out what I'm saying,"
No they don't. None of these off topic questions prove your MMIM to be True.
"Likewise, Humans don't do perfection when it comes to moral matters."
Yes, this is you restating your claim (a claim that you acknowledged that you cannot prove to be True in an aborted comment). You restating your claim, doesn't deal with the question that has been asked. Simply repeating yourself isn't helpful.
You are positing some sort of imperfection that affects every single human being ever born, despite every human being born with absolutely zero sin, universally. Please explain your claim and provide objective evidence of your claim.
"It's just observable reality."
You claim to be able to observe the effect, now show me the cause.
"Imperfection is our term we are using for not having perfect moral reasoning or capacity. "
No, "Imperfection" the word that you've chosen to use. It's not "our word", it's yours.
I'll note that this and the rest of (aborted) comment, didn't even attempt to deal with the point I raised, and was just more demands that I answer questions while you keep stalling on proving your point.
"Putting it yet another way, it's a feature."
Usually a "feature" is considered to be a positive thing, perhaps you consider the imperfection to be a positive thing as well.
The problem with your idiotic animal analogies is that animals were created/evolved to function in a specific way in a specific environment.
I guess you could draw an equivalency in that human imperfection was a feature that was created/evolved to allow humans to function in a specific environment.
Strangely enough, the "Nature is red in tooth and claw" folx would probably agree that this imperfection which leads people inevitably into not "good" behavior, actually is an evolutionary feature which helps those who are willing to use their imperfections to their evolutionary advantage. Kind of like the "Rape is evolutionarily" beneficial crowd who believe that a man spreading his genetic family tree as far and wide as possible is beneficial.
Don't respond to this, as you'll just use it as an excuse to stray further from the path I've tried to focus on.
Post a Comment