Chill out.... didn't you notice the lil' :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Tygur
What do I have to do? Put the word, "anything", in bold print? You're breathing every night, aren't you??
Printable View
Chill out.... didn't you notice the lil' :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Tygur
What do I have to do? Put the word, "anything", in bold print? You're breathing every night, aren't you??
is that all you could do dennis?
i thought of you highly
you dissapoint me little one
:)
Who are you calling little?
Did Mike tell you? He's passing out some really wierd and wrong stories about me... I don't know what's wrong with him.. There was that once in the dark alley, but I told him no and walked away... ever since then he's acted a bit angry....
your like 12 now?
:)
it's you're, and I'm 14(going to be 15 on the 22 of September)
Some people never learn.... you're, you're, you're, you're, you're!!!!
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Yes but to the real living your dead when actually your saying i'm alive but you'd have to be dead to know that i was alive anyway!
So bieng alive is moving you dont have to have a heartbeat or anything!!!
So to you i'm alive but too many others i'm dead because they didnt read the dictionary or take the bible in the same context as you!
Get it!
Unless i come and haunt you!
So why are you alive?
Actually, I tried the dictionary. It goes in circles. It's actually kinda funny to see these definitions:
Dead: no longer living
Living: (to continue) to be alive or have life
Alive: living; having life; not dead
:D
And I purposely strayed away from the bible this time and stuck with reason, because I figured that'd be the best way of getting through to you..
As long as I am conscious, I am alive. So if I'm capable of saying it, I am living. The same goes for you. If you're capable of saying it, you're alive. In fact, if you're capable of saying anything (even if you say you're dead), you're actually alive in some form. And the fact that you can say it to me means that you're probably alive in the same world/realm as I am.
You're actually the first one to get my point in this thread. Ok not the part where you can "say you are alive" but the part "thinking you are alive". The issue is, how does "physical death" and this kind of death relate? upto you again.Quote:
Originally posted by Tygur
Actually, I tried the dictionary. It goes in circles. It's actually kinda funny to see these definitions:
Dead: no longer living
Living: (to continue) to be alive or have life
Alive: living; having life; not dead
:D
And I purposely strayed away from the bible this time and stuck with reason, because I figured that'd be the best way of getting through to you..
As long as I am conscious, I am alive. So if I'm capable of saying it, I am living. The same goes for you. If you're capable of saying it, you're alive. In fact, if you're capable of saying anything (even if you say you're dead), you're actually alive in some form. And the fact that you can say it to me means that you're probably alive in the same world/realm as I am.
Also defining death, we have:
1. There's no death, we live
2. There's no life, we are dead
3. There's no life and death, we just are
4. We don't
5. We live in die
What about you Kedaman!?
What is your way of thinking on this issue?
Personally, I hope that when I die that there is something else after, otherwise what is life about!!!!
IUnknown
I think we're just too ignorant to know what were twaddling about, but I hope I do.
When you are in your putative afterlife are you going to go around saying "I hope that when this after-life is over that there is something else after, otherwise what is this after-life about!!!!":confused:Quote:
Originally posted by IUnknown
What about you Kedaman!?
What is your way of thinking on this issue?
Personally, I hope that when I die that there is something else after, otherwise what is life about!!!!
IUnknown
LOL!!! :D
I just don't fancy the idea of 'ceasing to exist'.!!
IUnknown
I'm intrigued!!!Quote:
OK, here comes an opinion from experience.
IUnknown
Tygur had a point here. If you belive in an after life what you are really saying is that you don't belive in death. You are saying that there is merely a decoupling of the physical and the spiritual.Quote:
As long as I am conscious, I am alive. So if I'm capable of saying it, I am living.
Personnally, I think a belief in an afterlife or reincarnation are just manifestations of human kind's reluctance to deal with life's only innevitability; Death.
I believe there's a theory about the evolution of the Universe which is something like a loop:
- Big Bang;
- Expansion of the Universe;
- End of expansion;
- The Universe converges to the center (?);
- Back to Big Bang again.
So I ask: Could human and not human life have a similar behavior?
I would write more, but I'm hungry.
Well, if the universe is in such a loop, is each expansion (and subsequant collapse) identical every time? If it is, then we are stuck in an ever repeating time loop with our futures completely pre-determined. If it is different everytime (and never repeats in exactly the same way) then our destiny must be undefined.Quote:
I believe there's a theory about the evolution of the Universe which is something like a loop
Interesting as this may be, I can't see whole such a cyclic theory could be applied to human beings?
Hey Honeybee!:)Quote:
Originally posted by honeybee
OK, here comes an opinion from experience.
After you die, your soul goes to God for being re-assigned. Sometimes you may not be re-assigned to another body, sometimes you may. If you are re-assigned a body, you are re-born, but the memory of the previous birth is flushed out of you.
.
I've got SuSE Linux 7.2 and if someone turns off the power on your computer everything in RAM goes to God for being re-assigned. Sometimes it may not be re-assigned to another PC, sometimes it is. If it are re-assigned a PC, it is re-born, but the memory of the previous distro is flushed out of it.;)
Sorry for being glib - I'm really only pulling your leg - indeed my grandfather - being a closet hindu - believed exactly what you have outlined and I respected him greatly so I'm certainly not being disrespectful
This only happens if the MASS of the Universe exceeds a critical level - effectively there has to be enough stuff (mass) to have enough gravity (curve space) to make everthing fall back - now where are those donuts :pQuote:
Originally posted by Good Dreams
I believe there's a theory about the evolution of the Universe which is something like a loop:
- Big Bang;
- Expansion of the Universe;
- End of expansion;
- The Universe converges to the center (?);
- Back to Big Bang again.
So I ask: Could human and not human life have a similar behavior?
I would write more, but I'm hungry.
I think it was "scientifically prooved" two years ago, that universe expands without bounds by finding evidence of it's acceleration...Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
This only happens if the MASS of the Universe exceeds a critical level - effectively there has to be enough stuff (mass) to have enough gravity (curve space) to make everthing fall back - now where are those donuts :p
If you apply that on a human being, your existance will become very excentric, maybe like ghosts :p
I don't think it's possible to die, only be more or less aware of something.
Yes I've seen the lastes on this http://www.ency-astro.com/eaa/eaa/wh...ssion=557ce463 butQuote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I think it was "scientifically prooved" two years ago, that universe expands without bounds by finding evidence of it's acceleration...
I think you'll find its a rather bigger problem than will be proved in a single go. Have a look at this for some interesting background: http://www.duke.edu/~gra/bang.html
Well - as you say If you apply that on a human being, your existance will become very excentric, maybe like ghosts;)Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I don't think it's possible to die, only be more or less aware of something.
Why - I thought you were implying that consiousness could be encoded to a downloadable form - i.e. that it had a 'material carrier'.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I don't think it's possible to die, only be more or less aware of something.
:confused:
Conciousness isn't in any material is it? Have they found some kind of device inside your head that can be called consiousness?
Maybe they just haven't looked inside a living person?
No I know you don't think it is, it's some kind of abstract thing you can't touch, and still it's the only thing you know exists, which makes it more concrete than anything else.
You could say the same about pain. You can't actually see it but we know it is the function of interation between nerve endings and the brain.Quote:
Conciousness isn't in any material is it? Have they found some kind of device inside your head that can be called consiousness?
The question of consiousness is really whether or not it is merely a function of the brain or not.
...a statue...:)Quote:
What happens when you die?
Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
This only happens if the MASS of the Universe exceeds a critical level - effectively there has to be enough stuff (mass) to have enough gravity (curve space) to make everthing fall back - now where are those donuts :p
Okay... I'm going to try and clarify this, but keep in mind, there are conflicting theories...Quote:
Originally posted by Kedeman
I think it was "scientifically prooved" two years ago, that universe expands without bounds by finding evidence of it's acceleration
The universe is expanding, but it is not increasing in mass. The universe was bestowed with an amount of energy (like throwing a ball up) and, it the theory holds, the universe should be slowing its expansion (like a ball going up). It should eventually begin to pull back together under its own weight, which is constant.
Mind you, there are some questions to this... there is theory that there is naturally occuring anti-gravity. If there is, then it is helping to push the universe apart. Eventually the universe should reach an equalibrium, where it neither expands nor contracts. Either that, or the anti-gravity matter will seperate itself from the gravity matter, kind of like oil and water. Anti-gravity matter should, in effect, float in a condensing matter universe.
The total matter of the universe should not be increasing. It is possible. If it is, then the big bang is most likely moot. Yes, the amount of matter in the universe is in flux as it changes to and from energy, and as the universe "cools" more energy will become matter and add to the gravity that pulls the universe together, but the universe shouldn't be getting extra matter from no where.
Again, though, it is possible. The crazy notions of sub-space or extra-spacial dimensions come into play. We could be pulling in or leaking out matter to another universe.
Anyway... this gets into lots and lots of stuff that we haven't a clue about, but for the big bang to hold, the universe will stop expanding and begin contracting.
Oh, I have an off-topic question... when we say the universe is expanding, we do mean the matter in the universe, right? There is an infinite container (the void of space) that holds the universe, right?
Yup - they are doing it all the time and and certain levels quite a lot is known about conscieness.Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Maybe they just haven't looked inside a living person?
Software isn't material either and there is no physical device in your computer called VB6 (have a look and see ;))Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Conciousness isn't in any material is it? Have they found some kind of device inside your head that can be called consiousness?
Maybe they just haven't looked inside a living person?
The question is "is conscientious encoded in some material way in a physical substrate - in say the way that software runs on layers of software ~(OS, microcode etc) onto hardware or in the way that a Picasso is encoded using paint or a smile is 'encoded' in specific muscle and physiological actions - i.e. is it an emergent feature OR are you implicating a 'vital force' that is not represented in some way in the material substrate"
No - interestingly enough its the "container" i.e. the actual fabric of space that's expanding - thats the neat thing about it. I think that the first indication was in the 1930s with the discovery of Hubble's constant. I'll try to find you a reference if you want.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Oh, I have an off-topic question... when we say the universe is expanding, we do mean the matter in the universe, right? There is an infinite container (the void of space) that holds the universe, right?
More later but its dinner time now . . .:)
Well, if the universe is not expanding but space itself is dilating this pulls another plank from the Big Bang Theory's already shaky platform.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
No - interestingly enough its the "container" i.e. the actual fabric of space that's expanding - thats the neat thing about it. I think that the first indication was in the 1930s with the discovery of Hubble's constant. I'll try to find you a reference if you want.
More later but its dinner time now . . .:)
'Course, it would be interesting to see the relation between spatial and temporal dilation. How much time has passed at the universe's rim and how much has passed at its core?
In Newtonian terms whether it falls back or not would depend on whether the kinetic energy exceeds the gravity pulling it back and that is determined by the amount of mass that there is pulling it back - which is why the question of 'missing mass' is so critical.Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
The universe is expanding, but it is not increasing in mass. The universe was bestowed with an amount of energy (like throwing a ball up) and, it the theory holds, the universe should be slowing its expansion (like a ball going up). It should eventually begin to pull back together under its own weight, which is constant.
Yes, the question of dark matter (and anti-gravity matter).Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
In Newtonian terms whether it falls back or not would depend on whether the kinetic energy exceeds the gravity pulling it back and that is determined by the amount of mass that there is pulling it back - which is why the question of 'missing mass' is so critical.
'Course, for the theory to hold, the universe must stop expanding and begin collapsing. It can't (in Newtonian terms) break away from gravity and go into "orbit".
I somehow doubt that the Big Bang holds.
But... if the matter is not moving away of its own accord, then why does the weight (and gravity) of the universe matter? What is causing the spatial dilation that is causing the universe to expand? Are you saying it can be defeated by the universe's gravity?
Nope - you can have (i) a big bang with an open universe (the matter just gets more and more spread out) - it is not orbiting because the matter itself is not actually moving out - its the "fabric of spacetime" (and there is no radial component of mothion anyway) , (ii) an big bang with a static universe - there is just enough kinetic energy to balance the graviational energy, (iii) a big bang with a closed universe - enough mass to make it all fold up againQuote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
'Course, for the theory to hold, the universe must stop expanding and begin collapsing. It can't (in Newtonian terms) break away from gravity and go into "orbit".
I'm not aware that the non-big bang lobby have had much credibility in our lifetimes - its really a question of "what sort of big bang" and why?
Here are two pointers that help with thisQuote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
But... if the matter is not moving away of its own accord, then why does the weight (and gravity) of the universe matter? What is causing the spatial dilation that is causing the universe to expand? Are you saying it can be defeated by the universe's gravity?
THis is the best
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm
Nasa and missing mass
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...s/980109a.html
I might be ignorant at this area, you're not talking about psychology (i hope not) are you? I'm defining conscience on a philosophical basis.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Yup - they are doing it all the time and and certain levels quite a lot is known about conscieness.
Software is data, information, which is quite a different issue, the thing on your harddisk isn't software in fact, it's physical disk space, it's like instantiating an object (the physical memory) a class, which is the software (the data). If you adopt this on humans it would be like instantiating a brain from a conscieness, which implies the conscieness has nothing to do with the brain but the brain will be a blueprint of the conscieness.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
Software isn't material either and there is no physical device in your computer called VB6 (have a look and see ;))
The question is "is conscientious encoded in some material way in a physical substrate - in say the way that software runs on layers of software ~(OS, microcode etc) onto hardware or in the way that a Picasso is encoded using paint or a smile is 'encoded' in specific muscle and physiological actions - i.e. is it an emergent feature OR are you implicating a 'vital force' that is not represented in some way in the material substrate"
It doesn't work out, it just doesn't. I had a theory though, if you unify data, information, with conscieness as aspect of the same phenomenon, just like electricity and magnetism, you might get somewhere on the scientific plane. However I see this quite clearly; since data is nothing without an observer, the observer "owns" the data and thereby both knowledge and the conscieness is unrelated to matter and the rest of our physical nature
We are talking about what used to be called Natural Philosophy and is now called Science. If you are considering a non-empirically based philosophical construct then just about anything goes and we can shift to a completely different type of discussion - more entertaining but less fruitful. (e.g its "all Monads and its eternal damnation for anyone who doesn't believe in Monads")Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I might be ignorant at this area, you're not talking about psychology (i hope not) are you? I'm defining conscience on a philosophical basis.
If you are unaware of recent work I suggest that you read Daniel Dennett and Francis Crick's recent books to give a good background on the subject before thinking any further.
Can I ask you to go over this more clearly please. I don't think that it is purely a language problem that we are having here (just looking at the first three words for example - Software is data. . . well MY software executes - it is not just data ;) . . .Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
Software is data, information, which is quite a different issue, the thing on your harddisk isn't software in fact, it's physical disk space, it's like instantiating an object (the physical memory) a class, which is the software (the data). If you adopt this on humans it would be like instantiating a brain from a conscieness, which implies the conscieness has nothing to do with the brain but the brain will be a blueprint of the conscieness.
- actually I'm not just "winding you up" on this one this is relevant especially if we are talking about universal Turing machines in each case - (either by figuratively or literally)
When a person is born, we rejoice, and when they're married, we jubilate,
but when they die, we try to pretend that nothing happened.
--Margaret Mead
Odd as it sounds, there can be little question that some deaths are better than others. People cross-culturally have always made invidious distinctions between good deaths and bad. Compare, for instance, crooner Bing Crosby's sudden death following eighteen rounds of his beloved golf with the slow motion, painful expiration of an eighty-year-old diabetic. Bedridden following the amputation of his leg, the old man eventually began slipping in and out of consciousness. This continues over a period of years, exhausting the emotional, physical. and financial resources of his family. The essence of a "good death" thus involves the needs of the dying (such as coming at the end of full and completed lives, and when death is preferred to continued existence) as well as those of their survivors and the broader society.
Whereas the prevalence of unanticipated and premature deaths led to pre-industrial cultures to focus death fears on individuals' postmortem fates, the death fears of modern cultures are more likely to focus on the processes of dying. Thus contemporary fears of dying involve the anxieties of dying within institutional settings, where often life is structured for the convenience of staff and where residents suffer both physical and psychological pain in their depersonalization. They also involve fears of being victims of advanced Alzheimer's Disease: being socially dead and yet biologically alive. In sum, the dreaded liminality between the worlds of the living and the dead have historically shifted from the period after death to the period preceding it.
Cultural coping mechanisms have not kept pace with the dramatic changes in when and how we die. With a generation or two (rates varying by social class, religion, etc.) having died within institutionalized isolation, Americans are forgetting about how to learn to focus on dying as a human process, how to include the dying in their dialogues, and how to learn the lessons of their existence. Instead, the dying process now too often features silence or diversion. However, not surprisingly in our service-oriented economy, there are challenges to this medicalized, depersonalizing cultural route toward life's conclusion
SOCIALIZATIONS FOR DEATH
Like those at the dawn of human species, young children understand neither the inevitability of their own mortality nor its finality. Death fears must be learned. Paralleling the attempts of anthropologists and historians to map the death ethos of Western culture over time, there is a sizable research tradition in psychology and psychiatry on exactly how children's concepts of death unfold developmentally. As social scientists have studied the long-term social and cultural consequences of mass epidemics or total war, psychiatrists attempt to gauge how early firsthand death encounters later affect the motivations, psychoses, and fears of adulthood. And what lessons are learned in childhood about death? Consider the Saturday morning catechism. The lessons begin with the selection of breakfast cereals. Consider the products to the right, featuring flawed but immortal creatures (Frankenstein, a creature created from body parts, and Dracula, who subsists on the blood of the living). While eating their immortality flakes, children may watch their favorite cartoon: "The Roadrunner." The story line never varies: a coyote employs a number of strategies to kill (we assume to eat) the bird, only to have each attempt lethally backfire before he is once again resurrected to resume the hunt. This cartoon is followed by others bearing similar messages of violence, death, and indestructibility.
The following is the breakdown of their responses to the question "When you were a child, how was death talked about in your family?"
Openly 39%
With some sense
of discomfort 19%
Only when necessary
and then with an attempt
to exclude the children 14%
As though it were a taboo
subject 2%
Never recall any discussion 26%
TOTAL 439
For nearly one-half of these students the first personal involvement with death was the loss of a grandparent; for one out of five, it was the death of a pet. Consider how different these lessons received by children of America's upper-middle class vary from those from the lower rungs of society's stratification order. For the former, death typically comes to the old--to those who have lived full and completed lives. For the latter, death too often comes prematurely due to violence or accident. Consider, for instance, the following table derived from the 1988-90 NORC General Social Surveys (n=4194), summarizing Americans' responses to the question "Within the past 12 months, how many people have you known personally who were victims of homicide?"
PERCENT OF AMERICANS KNOWING ONE OR MORE HOMICIDE VICTIMS
AGE WHITE AMERICANS AFRICAN AMERICANS
18-25 11.6% 41.8%
26-35 9.5% 30.6%
36-45 8.4% 22.9%
46-55 7.4% 11.9%
56-65 8.0% 23.7%
66+ 3.8% 6.6%
TOTAL 8.0% 24.0%
In addition to individuals' social class, death socialization also vary across the lifespan. Late adolescence and early adulthood are periods when individuals are drunk with future time. Senses of immortality are lost during the middle years, when those of one's parents' generation routinely die (and one realizes that one is next up to bat with the Grim Reaper) and when the first of one's friendship circle dies of "natural causes." In old age, individuals' futurity dissolves as their time runs out.
Is there a life-cycle pattern of death fears? To find out, consider the responses to the statement "Thinking about dying doesn't bother me much," which was asked to 1,201 randomly-selected Americans in the 1994 AARP "Images of Aging in America" survey. In total, 31 percent of Americans disagreed somewhat or strongly, females (33%) more than males (27%). Those 18-34 were most likely to disagree (38%) while those 65- 74 disagreed the least (23%).
Tygur you obviously dont know me well enough! The only way to get through to me is too buy me beer!!!!!;)
Please explain that comment. Coz i believe in god, am christian, went to christian school but there is just somethings i have found that i cant believe in yet!
BTW how'd you go on the icecaps thing?????
I think a lot of ppl have missed the point i was making about saying i was dead! I was trying to show you exactly what Kedaman said ""thinking you are alive". "
I didnt want a debate on why or If i'm dead or not!
It's the same as the classic "Are you sure your not dreaming".
Are you sure your not dead! Are you sure your not in Keda's mind matrix!;)
Of bloody course i'm not dead or at least i think i'm not dead!
Which you could push further into do you think the spirit of a "dead" person continues on into another life?????
I wouldnt mind hearing your view on this one tygur!
Coz Jesus's did, did it not?
Beacon
You're right. I don't truly know you. I see you as one of the many people I was defending the bible against. Since you don't fully believe in the bible, I can't really convince you that something is true just by presenting a scripture.Quote:
Tygur you obviously dont know me well enough! The only way to get through to me is too buy me beer!!!!!
Please explain that comment. Coz i believe in god, am christian, went to christian school but there is just somethings i have found that i cant believe in yet!
My computer wasn't working for the past week or two. In fact, I lost everything on my hard drive just last week. So I lost track of all that while dealing with my computer. I'm gonna have to look into that again. You're right, tho. It is hard to prove.Quote:
BTW how'd you go on the icecaps thing?????
When you die, you're gone. That's it. There is no spirit that passes on into some afterlife. When Jesus died, it was the same way. He was truly gone when he was dead. This idea does not make it impossible to bring someone back. Try to think of consciousness as running software (It'd have to be some really complicated software, but you get the idea). Destroy the computer and the software is no longer running. It does not escape the destroyed computer. It was destroyed with the computer. Now imagine that the state of the computer (all the memory, the commands currently being processed, everything) was taken down and recorded somehow into some form of storage before the computer was destroyed. Now imagine that a new computer is built and it is restored to the same "state" as the previous one. That is probably something like what went on with Jesus. And what would happen to anyone else if he or she was to be raised back to life. Does that make sense to you?Quote:
Which you could push further into do you think the spirit of a "dead" person continues on into another life?????
I wouldnt mind hearing your view on this one tygur!
Coz Jesus's did, did it not?
You werent defending the bible against me!
You were defending your beliefs against my beliefs. Niether are wrong or right!
Naohs ark is just a prime example of something i cannot grasp at the moment but i was open to change or be proved wrong but still my question remain unsolved!
So jesus wasnt re-incarnated just re-installed?
So his spirit was dead? he was dead. His "data" was recorded by God or someone and they re-installed this data into his body again!
So he wasnt Jesus when he came back? Because Jesus was dead he was Jesus Version 2.0.
So with your statement i can safely state that there is no afterlife coz you are dead even your spirit is dead?
Or am i confused!
And dont get narky Tygur i'm not attacking you!
Something like that. The word used is resurrected.Quote:
So jesus wasnt re-incarnated just re-installed?
If you want to call it that. Actually, Jesus came back in a new body.Quote:
So his spirit was dead? he was dead. His "data" was recorded by God or someone and they re-installed this data into his body again!
The computer illustration was a littke crude. He was still Jesus. He (his consciousness, memory, etc.) was brought back in the same state as he left. Think of MyApp 1.0 being copied to another PC (another crude illustration). MyApp doesn't become version 2.0 after being copied. Nothing changed.Quote:
So he wasnt Jesus when he came back? Because Jesus was dead he was Jesus Version 2.0.
So with your statement i can safely state that there is no afterlife coz you are dead even your spirit is dead?
Or am i confused!
Narky? What's that mean? I'm not feeling any kind of negative emotions.. I'm actually enjoying this. :)Quote:
And dont get narky Tygur i'm not attacking you!
Narky = Angry etc.
So if it was a new body how'd they no it was him?
Angels tell them?
Sorry my memory of the new testament isnt that good.
So it was a copy of Jesus's "insides"! But still thats a copy of him not the original thing it contains everything the orginal has but isnt. If you know what i mean. A bit like cloning.
It's him but it isnt.
Not really. If you stick with the idea of "data" being copied, you know that an exact state copied from one computer to the other behaves and acts in completely the same way.. This is so exact that the "copy" might as well be the original.
By the way, these ideas are all coming from my own head..
Ok let's try this:
Someone dies. God decides he should be raised up. God looks back in time (think of it like he's remembering the previous state) and transfers the person (from his own memory) into a new body (if necessary, otherwise, it's the same body, but rebuilt, probably according to the specs from God's memory). God made us all. He should know how to transfer our consciousness or whatever makes it up. I'm hoping this explanation helps you understand that there's more of a move going on than a copy..