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