Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Souls
Message-ID: <588@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 22:46:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.588
Posted: Thu Aug 22 22:46:53 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 02:46:13 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 22

> >Resurrection implies continuity of something. The continuity
> >is contained in the "we" that is resurected, since the "we" was there
> >before, and after, resurrection. There's no way out of this. All
> >this talk about our lack of understanding of life, and whether or not
> >to take our intuition seriously is a bunch of horsefeathers that is
> >going off on a tangent from this issue.
> 
> I see.  At A I have X, and at B I have X, so there must be a continuity of X
> between the two.  There are so many assumptions implicit in this that it's
> hard to know where to start.

Well let me show you:

  1) Let A be life before death, and B life after death,
  2) we have X at A where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected"
  3) we have X at B where X is the "we" in "we are resurrected"

These assumptions are implicit in the resurrection claim. These are not
being challanged here. Now X forms an uninterrupted succession, therefore
it is continuous.
   
Padraig Houlahan