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: <577@utastro.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 14:29:25 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.577 Posted: Mon Aug 19 14:29:25 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 24-Aug-85 15:37:09 EDT References: <573@utastro.UUCP> <1291@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 22 > 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 You are the one making the claim that something continues through the life-death transition. The onus is on you to explicitly state the nature of the "continuity". Padraig Houlahan.