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!cbosgd!ihnp4!qantel!dual!mordor!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: More Atheistic Wishful Thinking
Message-ID: <726@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 16-Sep-85 13:01:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.726
Posted: Mon Sep 16 13:01:23 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 06:13:41 EDT
References: <1566@umcp-cs.UUCP> <714@utastro.UUCP> <1590@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 100

> In article <714@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
> 
> >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.
> 
> So what?  What is absurd about it?  What is this "you" thing, anyway?  I
> thought you were supposed to be a strict materialist.  All of a sudden
> there's this "you" which somehow makes one copy of me unlike another.  And I
> don't recall God promising to raise up "exactly one" of me.

Now Charles, whether I am a strict materialist is beside the point, so
stop digressing. As far as the absurdity is concerned, I will spell it
out for you below.

>>> ...
>
> >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.
> 
> I thought you were supposed to be a strict materialist; now you're talking
> like some sort of Platonist, since you have rather suddenly started arguing
> for the supernatural existence of things like numbers, programs, words, etc.
> If you are going to make that kind of argument, then you might as well
> express a belief in souls and be done with it.

What I believe has nothing to do with the internal consistency of
your claims. To bring this up is just an attempt to change the topic.
I am showing you that severe problems exist with your set of beliefs given
the assumptions you make.

> >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"; 
> 
> Well, of course there is, and the fact that you raise this objection
> indicates that either you didn't read what I said or didn't understand it,
> as evidenced by the following:
> 
> >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"? 
> 
> Both of them are distinct "him"s.  One is a "him" that was not
> matter-transmitted, and the other is the "him" that was.  Each of them is
> the person that went to the matter transmitter, but they are not each other;
> they are distinct human beings, even though they are both the same person as
> "him" in the past.  It is not a transitive relationship.

Now here's the absurdity bit. Suppose your wife meets you after you
have been resurrected into two identities say, which one does she 
identify as being her husband? 

> ...
>
> Again you have misrepresented my thoughts.  I said it was NOT NECESSARY to
> believe in souls to be a Christian.  THe fact that many (even most)
> christians do is of no relevance.

Perhaps, but it is most unusual. Since Christ is supposed to have spent
much time trying to "save" us, and "died for us", it does seem somewhat
absurd for someone to call themselves christian and ignore all his
references to salvation.

> >> 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.
> 
> >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?
> 
> The fact that you think that in any way resolves the issue indicates that
> you have no appreciation of the diversity of views within Christianity.
> 
> Charley Wingate

Well look here, the recent Don Black also claimed to be christian; are
christians to be associated with the likes of him just because he lays
claim to the name? There has to be some set of criteria against which
such claims are to be assessed. The set traditionaly has contained
the existence of god and the existence of the soul. It has also
included concepts such as salvation, sin, love etc.

I suppose that there is little else to be said on this topic since
it boils down to a matter of opinion on both sides. However I am still
fascinated and am curious as to why the concept of soul has been dropped
by you. Its explanatory power is tremendous, and is just as plausible,
perhaps even more so than the resurrection. It does have the disadvantage
of forcing the introduction of sin, punishment etc. into ones viewpoint.

Padraig Houlahan


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com