Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Souls Message-ID: <1291@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 11:05:09 EDT Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1291 Posted: Sun Aug 18 11:05:09 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 01:35:22 EDT References: <573@utastro.UUCP> Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 16 In article <573@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >Charley, this is a crock of soup. If "we" get resurrected, then that implies >continuity of something that characterizes the "we" through the death- >resurrection phase. Well, then... perhaps we should stop using the word life then, and call it something else. This argument relies entirely on an intuition about the nature of Life: that it enjoins a certain continuity of existence. I would like to see the nature of this continuity explicitly stated (in a way that holds up in an atheistic world too), and then maybe we can start discussing how we can apply this to something we of necessity know no details of. Charley Wingate