The distinction is whether or not the cycle (history) is considered the proper way of things or a symptom of human defect.
When it comes to the human soul I do. To just know a soul is defective requires one without defects.
Sorry. You can't comment about what attributes something has if you can't show that thing even exists.
So you arrived at your conclusion based upon an opinion that is derived from a belief that is contingent upon faith. You can imagine why that doesn't work for some people.
'unproven scientific presupposition' (hypothesising) isn't special pleading.
How does a soul become defective?
I've never seen a perfect person become imperfect nor have I seen a perfect person. I would not recognize it if I did. Evidently then all souls must be defective. It follows that a parent of us all must have become defective. Perfect human life known only by that parent and only something remembered.
I think very few people would claim to be perfect. What is a mystery is what a perfect person would be like. Would they even know it?
I think going the defective route is most reasonable.
Being cognizant of defects requires awareness of some sort, of perfection. My assertion must have been misunderstood.
Miraculous = Supernatural = Outside or above nature = Utterly unexplainable.
You are probably correct. That is why I abandoned belief in anything decades ago. Faith strikes me as the most bizarre aberration of human thought and something to be rigorously avoided. I argue that a pragmatic acceptance of the most likely explanations for "things" is a more realistic and useful approach.
And your attempt to clarify here has, regretably, failed.
To fix something one must have some sort of awareness of it unbroken. You can't avoid faith. Any good scientist will tell you that. I'm very certain the sun exists at night when I can't see it, but I have to take it on faith I will see it again.
I think it entirely plausible that an advanced alien race would be capable of such an action. Since an advanced alien race would be entirely natural it would be a more parsimonious explanation than a deity.
I've no idea. It would only become an issue for me if there was significant evidence supporting the plausibility of God. I am confident that the Christian God does not exist, since the support for his existence is profoundly weak and leaves the believer relying on faith - I've summarised my attitude to faith in my previous post.
Yes, but earlier you said this.
That statement makes it clear that defects can only be known to one with perfection. Are you now withdrawing this statement?
Nonsense. I expect to see the sun again, because experience has suggested this is very likely to happen. The scientific knowledge of the solar system explains why that is likely to happen. But an unrecognised stellar phenomenon could cause the sun to "go out", or the Earth could suddenly implode for reasons well beyond out current understanding, or I could wake up to find all this had been a simulation I had been playing in for decades and the universe and body I inhabited were quite different. I don't rule out anything much.
So what does it mean to be a 'perfect' person, particularly if the likelihood is that there is no such thing and no-one would recognise it unless they were themselves perfect? How is it a useful concept?
