The Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection is false.

The Law of IdentityAccording to the Law of Identity (one of the most basic laws of logic), A is identical to A. Everything is identical to itself.But we may not always knows that two entities are actually the same entity. For example, Lois Lane doesn't know that Superman and Clark Kent are actually the same person.If whatever is true of A is also true of B, and vice versa, then A and B are actually the same thing. It turns out that everything that is true of Superman is also true of Clark Kent and vice versa because they are the same person.If there is just one thing that is true of A that is not true of B, then it is impossible for A and B to be the same thing.Now suppose that God creates two copies of the same person. Each has an identical physical structure, down to the molecule, and each has identical memories at the moment of creation, as well as identical personality, desires, thoughts, etc. It would still be impossible for them to be the same person for two reasons.First, because they would be located in two different places. It is not possible for one person to be located in two different places at the same time, and it is not possible for two physical humans to occupy the same space at the same time.Second, because it's possible for something to happen to one without it happening to the other. For example, one could get pooped on by a passing bird while the other doesn't. If there is something possible of A that is not possible for B, then A and B cannot be the same thing.Since in any case where Jehovah creates two copies of the same person, it's impossible for everything that is true about one to be true about the other, it's therefore impossible for the two copies to actually be the same person.Con's view of identityThis refutes Con's claim that if Jehovah were to create two versions of the same person, that they "would most definitely be the same person." They would not and could not be the same person.Con claims that "There is nothing else, other than our personality and our memories, that makes us what we are." But as we've seen, personality and memories are not sufficient to establish personal identity since it's possible for two different persons to have the same personality and memories. Something more is needed.Con claims that although two identical persons at the resurrection would be the same person at they moment they were created, nevertheless "as they had different experiences they would cease to be the same person, just as we change continually, if only in minute increments, with every new experience."Although there is a since in which we claim that a person who has undergone a radical change in personality is "not the same person," we do not mean that literally. When a person has new experiences resulting in new memories, and when a person changes some aspect of their personality (e.g. overcoming anger issues), they are still literally the same person. Otherwise, it would never be just to punish a person for what they supposedly did in the past. And it would false for a person to ever say anything like, "I used to have anger issues" since the person who had anger issues no longer exists and the present person is literally a different person than whoever it was that had anger issues.Con says, "In a very real sense the you that you are now, is not the you that you will be tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that." If we take his "real sense" to mean a "literal sense," then this is just nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but it refutes the Jehovah's Witness view on death and resurrection that I spelled out at in round one which Con agreed with. In the JW view, the person who rises at the resurrection is the same person as the one who died. But if it is true that we are literally not the same person from day to day, then it is impossible that the person who rises at the resurrection is really the same person as the one who died. After all, the person who rises immediately has a different experience (being resurrected) than the person who died.It's also nonsense because if taken literally, it means that none of us have existed for longer than a moment. We ourselves were never actually born. We have no parents. None of the memories we have are real since we ourselves did not participate in them. Culpability, which is central to Christianity, is out the window since nobody living today is guilty of any crime that was committed yesterday. Whatever crimes were committed yesterday were committed by people who no longer exist.So Con's view of personal identity needs some work. Or at least it needs some clarification.ConclusionBy the law of identity, it is impossible for Jehovah to create two people and have them be the same person. For that reason, all of my previous arguments explained by thought experiment in the previous round are sound, and Con has not refuted them.Con needs to come up with some criteria for personal identity that will make the person at the resurrection actually be the same person as the one who previously died rather than being a replica.After all, suppose that instead of bringing you back into existence at the resurrection, Jehovah chose instead to bring a perfect replica of you into existence at the resurrection. What would be the difference in what Jehovah did? I submit that there could be no difference from what Jehovah's Witnesses claim Jehovah is going to do, which is to use his perfect memory of you as a blueprint for creating you at the resurrection. And that means that if you cease to exist at death, then all Jehovah can do at the resurrection is make a duplicate of you. You yourself will be gone for good.I want to thank Con for a speedy response. I was really busy over the weekend, so it took me until today to post my opening arguments.