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.