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.