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!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!flink
From: flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: LAST WORD on "souls" (I hope!)
Message-ID: <1364@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 20:10:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1364
Posted: Fri Aug 23 20:10:25 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 26-Aug-85 00:45:43 EDT
References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> <588@utastro.UUCP>
Reply-To: flink@maryland.UUCP (Paul V. Torek)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 45
Summary: It BETTER be the last word, dammit

In article <588@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>> >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. 

and he later explains:

>  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.

WRONG!  Look, I'm the last one to argue for Wingate's religious beliefs,
BUT:  it just ain't implied by a person's existence at time A, and later at
time B, that he must have existed during the time between.  (It happens
to be always true in the real world, but as a matter of physical law and
boundary conditions, not as a matter of logic.)

CASE:
An electron exists at time A (7:00:00 am), and at time B (7:00:01 am),
but not in between.  It interacts with another particle, and both disappear
for one second; then both reappear.  (Physics experts, correct me if this
is not possible; I've read that it is.  Anyway, even if it is not physically
possible, it is *logically* possible [i.e. it involves no contradiction].)

OBJECTION:
If the electon at time A disappears, how can you identify the electron at
time B as THE SAME electron?

REPLY:
No other electrons were within one light-second at the time of the
observation.  Since the electron observed at time B obviously has a
lot in common with the one observed at A, and since no other particle
is a candidate for being that electron, it makes perfect sense to say
that the electron at time B is THE SAME electron.

CONCLUSION:  It is not a valid deduction to infer, from the fact that
an entity exists at time A and at time B, that it must have existed
continuously all along.  Therefore, Padraig Houlahan's argument that
resurection implies continuity implies soul, is invalid.  Q.E.D.

Paul V Torek, aspiring ender of silly debates.