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!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Souls Message-ID: <751@utastro.UUCP> Date: Mon, 23-Sep-85 12:33:37 EDT Article-I.D.: utastro.751 Posted: Mon Sep 23 12:33:37 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 11:55:33 EDT References: <581@utastro.UUCP> <1322@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX Lines: 37 > In article <732@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: > >> One can restore the memories and attitudes as of the moment of death. One > >> cannot restore the body as of the moment of death, because it would then be > >> dead. This does not apply to the memories and attitudes. > > > >Would you care to prove this? > > I beg your pardon, I thought it was obvious. Which part do you not accept: > > 1) if you restore a person's body as of the moment of death, you will have > a dead body? > > 2) if one has developed a method for restoring memories and attitudes, and > use it to restore the memories and attitudes of a person at the moment > of death (to a living body acquired in some unspecified fashion), the > result will not necessarily be dead? > > Or did you think I was asserting that a method for restoring memories and > attitudes was known? I'm not; I'm only asserting that such a method is > conceivable. If you disbelieve this, the burden of proof is on you. I agree that it is perhaps conceivable, however I have reservations about exotic claims, (presented as being "better" in some sense than another exotic set), being justified and defended purely on the basis of hypothetical conjecture. My comment was intended to introduce harsh reality back into the picture by forcing the recognition of the degree of conjecture involved. Recall that the discussion concerned resurrection and the soul. All I am saying is that in the context of the former, the latter provides tremendous explanatory power and self consistency. To do away with the soul, from my viewpoint as a non-believer, reduces the system furthermore into mere assemblages of assertions that don't hang together - kind of like introducing more of Maxwell's demons into your picture. Finally, the burden of proof lies with the claimant and not the listener. Padraig Houlahan. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com