mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (08/23/85)
In article <588@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> 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. The assumption I was particularly referring to was the principle that existence of something at two different points implies continuous existence of the same thing between them. Since this isn't even true in the physical world, which Padraig claims to have knowledge of, why should this principle be accepted for supernatural phenomena? Many phenomena appear at isolated points in time without any intervening existence of the same substance. We tend to assert that the two isolated occurances are different entities. Now, the problem I see is that even if I accept Padraig's intuition that life requires this kind of continuity, he neglects to consider the possibility that whatever it is that characterizes a person could be transformed into a supernatural being at death, and then back to a material, living person again down the road. I'll even let him call the supernatural being a soul. It should be quite apparent that the soul as so defined did not exist before the person's death, and ceased to exist when the person lived again. So in fact, you still have the continuity, but living people do not have souls. This is exactly analogous to a person driving a car at points A and B (let a be California, and B be Maryland). There's no implication that the person was driving a car in between those points, even if it is the same car. The person could have had the car shipped to Md., flew to BWI, and got back into the car. I think the analogy should be quite clear enough. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (08/24/85)
> In article <588@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > > >> 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. > > The assumption I was particularly referring to was the principle that > existence of something at two different points implies continuous existence > of the same thing between them. Since this isn't even true in the physical > world, which Padraig claims to have knowledge of, why should this principle > be accepted for supernatural phenomena? This is garbage. We are talking about life, and life after death, according to your scenario. The continuity is there throughout our lives - you are not trying to say that there have been times throughout your life that you didn't exist, are you? > Many phenomena appear at isolated points in time without any intervening > existence of the same substance. We tend to assert that the two isolated > occurances are different entities. Now, the problem I see is that even if I > accept Padraig's intuition that life requires this kind of continuity, he > neglects to consider the possibility that whatever it is that characterizes > a person could be transformed into a supernatural being at death, and then > back to a material, living person again down the road. I'll even let him > call the supernatural being a soul. It should be quite apparent that the > soul as so defined did not exist before the person's death, and ceased to > exist when the person lived again. So in fact, you still have the > continuity, but living people do not have souls. Yeah, yeah. Sounds like the work of Maxwell's demons to me. > ...This is exactly analogous > to a person driving a car at points A and B (let a be California, and B be > Maryland). There's no implication that the person was driving a car in > between those points, even if it is the same car. The person could have had > the car shipped to Md., flew to BWI, and got back into the car. I think > the analogy should be quite clear enough. > > Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Yes, but in your analogy the person never ceases to exist. Padraig Houlahan.