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!linus!decvax!ucbvax!ucdavis!lll-crg!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <714@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 21:32:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.714
Posted: Fri Sep 13 21:32:24 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 06:46:20 EDT
References: <1552@umcp-cs.UUCP> <701@utastro.UUCP> <1566@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 100

> >Then if you are murdered, but a clone of yours survives, you continue to
> >exist? Charley A, though now in a coffin still lives and wont be resurrected?
> >(How can one be resurrected if one hasn't died?)
> >The murderer can cite as evidence that no murder has taken place the fact
> >that Charley is still hanging in there in the form of Charley B?
> 
> Back when I was talking about this subject, I never stated that the original
> after the copy and the copy itself were "the same" in any way; what I did
> say was that copy and the original BEFORE the copy were the same.

You claimed that "you" would be resurrected. That is a statement implying
identity transfer. By all that you continue to say, you being resurrected
is the same as you being generated from all the data that describes you, i.e.
a copy is made of you. Therefore, by your own reasoning, identity is
transferred through the copying process. The issue is not whether the copy
has similar attributes, but whether it is "you"? You claim that it is, which
is absurd since multiple copies can be made from the same data that the
first one was made from.

> >The point of all this is to demonstrate the absurdity of confusing "same"
> >in the sense of "identical copy" and "same" as a statement of "identity".
> >Your reference to the above song fails to make this distinction.
> 
> The confusion only arises because the song is a static thing.  Suppose
> instead that I copy a computer program, and make changes to it; at the same
> time, someone is changing the original.  Neither of these is an indentical
> copy of anything, yet both are the same program as the original, except
> changed.  Do not humans mark identity in much the same way?  And are you
> willing to argue that "matter transmission", were it possible, would kill a
> person?  WHat do you call the person that arrives at the other end?

I disagree totally with this. If you have problems justifying transferance
of identity with things that look similar, your case falls apart completely
when attempting to apply your arguments to dissimilar items. The programs
can be called the same because the code for them always existed, either
on disk, tape, paper, or in someone's head, but the thing that characterized
it never went out of existence, it was always available somewhere if needed.

You continue to refuse to face up to the problem that there is a sense
of identity that has to be ascribed to each object produced by a template
on an assembly line that allows one to refer to a particular one as "it"; 

To follow your matter transfer analogy a bit, would you say the
guy at the other end  was resurrected? What if the machine made copies?
Which of the copies is "him"? 

> >This I find surprising. That you can claim resurrection and continuity
> >of identity without a shred of evidence and at the same time write the above
> >is incredible.
> 
> What is incredible is your curious statement that I am trying to
> scientifically demonstrate resurrection.  I have never claimed that the
> claims of Christianity are scientifically verifiable; all I am claiming in
> this case is plausibility.  I do expect you and Rich, however, to hew
> strictly to scientific procedure.

Yes, but here's the rub: you presumably used some type of semi logical
reasoning to reject a conventional tenet of christianity - that there
is a soul- but now when your conclusions are scrutinized in turn you
say that your claims are not open to scientific examination. Well that's
fine by me. You have gone to great pains to defend your point of view,
present them as being the result of sound reasoning, criticized me for
my lack of knowledge about modern christianity, but what it all boils down
to is your views are protected justify in the same way as the rest
of religious thought is.
 
> >>>> In contrast, Rich is asserting that in the face of near total absence of
> >>>> evidence and investigation, he can claim that conscious identity is
> >>>> purely in the body.  Now, maybe ten years from now, he will have some
> >>>> basis for this claim, but right now, he has none.
> 
> >How many times have you been introduced to someone that extended his
> >hand and shook the nearest table rather than your hand? If never, then
> >you might take this as evidence that people dont as a rule doubt that
> >your identity resides in your body.
> 
> Ah yes, but you are using resides in the sense of "lives in", while I am
> using it in the sense of "is to be identified with".

Wrong. My scenario still applies. People still identify "you" with
your body, and not with the table.

> >> One of the principles of science is that the truth or falsity of a
> >> statement should be independent of its subjective significance...
> 
> >Hmmm! What is the subjective significance of resurrection? Could it possibly
> >be influencing your ability to tell the truth? Nah, 'course not, y'all are
> >talkin' 'bout religion here anyways.
> 
> Well, you and Rich have both expressed vast ignorance of Christianity
> before, and I see no reason to waste my time in futile effort to change that.
> 
> Charley Wingate

Why don't we take a poll on the net (which I will do immediately) to
see who's in tune with christian thought on the issue?

Padraig Houlahan.

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com