Printable View
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..
Now this is were it gets shady if someone copied me right now there would be 2 Beacons with the same opinions etc. etc.
But would I be living 2 lives seeing through both sets of eyes etc. nope.
1 would walk down the street and see a red car adn he'd note that it was a red car and the other may not get out of bed so he doesnt see the red car!
2 individuals the orginal and the copy! If the original died then he wouldnt keep living in the copy his thoughts and feelings would but not actually him!
Thats is taking also into account that god made us!;)
But we've discussed this b4.
So you dont believe there is a thing as a spirit which keeps on living tygur?
Simonm - its going to use up a lot of the forum if we have to reproduce a freshman astrophysics course here so can I point you to http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s7-01/7-01.htm as I did CiberThug.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
What? This must be twaddle! What is on the outside "bounding the universe? Are you saying vacuum has a fabric to it?
And what exactly is curved into a hypersphere? The vacuum ;)?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I might believe the universe is a finite in size but unbounded (i.e. a hypersphere).
And what is it curved into (i.e. what is outside it) - you have just run into the same twaddle :)
Well, there's always the possibility that there are an infinite number of spacial dimensions.Quote:
And what exactly is curved into a hypersphere?
But, if 3D space is not enclosed in a hypersphere then I still find it difficult to accept that there could be any other bounds to the universe.
Still, I shall go to the site you recommend and so what's going on. :)
I'm gonna be looking into our literature to make sure I'm right about this point. I'm starting to think I may have it wrong, so I gotta make sure..Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
...That Jesus' body resurrected in the same body (not another one).
I have a problem and I also have limited time, without having to read through tons of books, can you shortly define what conscieness is and how it is related to physical nature? If this is science, i'm going to be very thankful for what you have to say :)Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
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")
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.
Okay, i'll explain.Quote:
Originally posted by Kzin
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 ;) . . .
[/B]
It's data, you can't deny that but Executes.. well does software need to be executed to be software, you may ask yourself? No it's built for execution. To go into lowlevel description It's instuctions for the processor, data of two types; instruction identification and memory address, that's data isn't it? In programming terms, software derives data, and implements the ability to execute. Whether the software is bad or good, short or long, it's still software, which is data, you can rename any file type .exe it will execute but it probably will malfunction, but it's still a malfunctioning software. It is how the observer defines to use it.
I know this is a very obvious issue but you demanded me to ******** it and here we are :) But don't forget the rest of what I said, besides this example what more?
I know it must be annoying (because you have limited time) but can I ask why you have limited time (Essay?, ECT?, Death?, Boredom?) - as it will affect the depth and type of answer . . .Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
I have a problem and I also have limited time,
if you are trying to derive a subjective truth without reference to what is already known (as I gathered by looking at one of your recent threads) then I'm afraid that by the very nature of thing only you can get there and no-one else can really help you ;)
Its very difficult to give a cogent and coherent coverage without the background material (. . . in the Dilbert cartoons there is a bit where a secretary tells Dilbert "Tell me everything you know about Software Engineering - I don't care if it takes all day . . .") ;) . . . well its a bit like that . . .Quote:
Originally posted by kedaman
read through tons of books, can you shortly define what conscieness is and how it is related to physical nature? If this is science, i'm going to be very thankful for what you have to say :)
Beacon
I forgot to reply to your message
Actually, you can't say that for certain without trying it out. There is too much involved that we have very little information about. Also, I'm not talking about two copies existing at the same time.Quote:
Now this is were it gets shady if someone copied me right now there would be 2 Beacons with the same opinions etc. etc.
But would I be living 2 lives seeing through both sets of eyes etc. nope.
1 would walk down the street and see a red car adn he'd note that it was a red car and the other may not get out of bed so he doesnt see the red car!
2 individuals the orginal and the copy! If the original died then he wouldnt keep living in the copy his thoughts and feelings would but not actually him!
Like I said, the computer illustration is a bit crude. There is probably something about your "state" (as mentioned in the illustration) that actually defines you (your perception, consciousness, commonly called soul but I don't like that word, also called spirit but I'm not so sure about that one either).
NopeQuote:
So you dont believe there is a thing as a spirit which keeps on living tygur?
Kzin
Ok, just don't look at the other threads of mine in this case, I want you to get me the "scientific" perspective on conscience. I want a simple anwer, and depth, you're choise actually :) I have limited time as in time for something under an unlimited amount of time. I'm just scheduling time for what I should do on my spare time, if you know what I mean ;) I'm seriously interested though so judge on that instead.
If this is what you're expecting me to ask from you then hehe not really :) I'm just asking for a definition and that should also conclude how it relates to physical nature, oh and don't write a whole essay, I'd like to discuss so that we can concentrate on what I think is relevant.Quote:
Its very difficult to give a cogent and coherent coverage without the background material (. . . in the Dilbert cartoons there is a bit where a secretary tells Dilbert "Tell me everything you know about Software Engineering - I don't care if it takes all day . . .") . . . well its a bit like that . . .
simonm
Who are you to judge? At times I even wonder if I'm just not looking trough the eyes of a biological robot, experiencing the decisions of it as if they were mine, being a passive observer. At times I said, I'm still experimenting with the pieces for the puzzle I'm trying to solve. You know I'm also openminded to the counter analogy that consiousness is induced from intelligence.Quote:
I think your analogy is flawed. OK, scientists still cannot explain what gives rise to consiousness and some cannot accept that it could from an entirely mechanistic process but it is still conceivable that consiousness is a function of brain activity
afterlife sounds to me like an contradiction, however I could distinguish between physical death and loss of my conscience. About "a more logical explanation..." doesn't really fit into the picture, logically doesn't it? The bible doesn't derive our current scientific views and you know it, it might derive our ancestors or it might derive our future generations but it's probably not meant to have any dependencies at all.Quote:
That Jesus' body resurrected in the same body (not another one). I mean, if it was someone elses body, surely a more logicial explanation is that after Jesus dies, someone got up and started saying that they were Jesus ressurected into a new body. How could anyone have been sure it wasn't an imposter?
I agree partly, but I'm experiencing a 3 dimensional physical universe, but 3-dimensional is a mathematical term and so our knowledge and perspective are again restricted to OUR models of universe... What is 3D without an observer?Quote:
Well, there's always the possibility that there are an infinite number of spacial dimensions.
But, if 3D space is not enclosed in a hypersphere then I still find it difficult to accept that there could be any other bounds to the universe.
Beacon & Tygur
Quote:
This is so exact that the "copy" might as well be the original.
I really enjoyed reading your conversation(because it's bringing many issues of my interest)Quote:
But would I be living 2 lives seeing through both sets of eyes etc. nope.
Depending on how we define conscience we face different issues.
Which is original? If you have two identical copies there's no way to identify the original which makes it just a concept of your perspective. From your perspective if you were copied you'd have no choise but to accept that there is a possibility that you are the copy, the physical copy. From perspective of conscience your conscience might get duplicated, this is totally ok if you think conscience is induced from physical matter or even conceptual intelligence. I'm not sure but it might be possible you could share the conscience of two beings, but if they're slowly going to differ from each other or if theyre going to influence each other on the basis that they are the same individual by conscience, brings up some new issues, and there's no examples, are there?
If you define conscience as the passive observer, you face new issues, who's going to take the copy's place as observer if any at all?
So how do you define conscience?Quote:
Originally posted by Tygur
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So you dont believe there is a thing as a spirit which keeps on living tygur?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope
[/B]
That was next question dammit!:)
Tygur: How could forget about me!!!:( ;)
I took the 2 living at the same time as an example to say that each one of us has something that cant be copied or replaced. This is a persumption!! Why i say this is because 2 everyone else if 1 copy died the living copy would be beacon same old same old! But to the living and dead copy of beacon they would still be 2 separate ppl! Just with similar thoughts and ideas!
When i die i'm dead i cant be cloned and brought back to life it aint me it's a copy of me! I'm still dead but there is just another person walking around exactly like me!
Which brings me to the point of Jesus coming back to life. If he was a copy it wasnt Jesus it was Jesus2 with the same beliefs.
I also disagree with him coming back in a new body! He came back to life in the tomb where his body lay. Some folk came past seen the boulder had moved and found that jesus was alive!
Well thats how i remember it!
And if there is no spirit or soul what is the holy spirit??
Keda: Sharing conscienceness well, perhaps Twins have been known to do freaky things like thinking same thing at time knowing when one is hurt etc.
Beacon
After some research, I'm gonna revise my stand..
Maybe..but maybe not. How all that works out is unknown. It's never been observed, so we can't say anything for sure. There could be another fact about all this we have no clue about. Cloned isn't the best word, by the way. It implies regrowing. I'm talking about duplicating.Quote:
I took the 2 living at the same time as an example to say that each one of us has something that cant be copied or replaced. This is a persumption!! Why i say this is because 2 everyone else if 1 copy died the living copy would be beacon same old same old! But to the living and dead copy of beacon they would still be 2 separate ppl! Just with similar thoughts and ideas!
When i die i'm dead i cant be cloned and brought back to life it aint me it's a copy of me! I'm still dead but there is just another person walking around exactly like me!
This is the part where I'm gonna revise my stand. In the beginning, Jesus was a spirit creature. Then he was born in a perfect body. Then he lived for about 33 years before dying. Then he was resurrected, but not to another human body. He was resurrected as a spirit creature, which is what he was before being born on earth. He did take on a human form numerous times after his resurrection, but that didn't make him human.Quote:
Which brings me to the point of Jesus coming back to life. If he was a copy it wasnt Jesus it was Jesus2 with the same beliefs.
I also disagree with him coming back in a new body! He came back to life in the tomb where his body lay. Some folk came past seen the boulder had moved and found that jesus was alive!
Well thats how i remember it!
It is God's active force that he uses to do his will.Quote:
And if there is no spirit or soul what is the holy spirit??
This should contribute to the idea that much is unknown about what would happen if someone was duplicated...Quote:
Keda: Sharing conscienceness well, perhaps Twins have been known to do freaky things like thinking same thing at time knowing when one is hurt etc.
Kedaman
I think you used the wrong word. You mean what is commonly called the soul or spirit (while it is still in the body), right?Quote:
So how do you define conscience?
Your soul is you. It's your physical body. It's yourself.
Your spirit is your life-force. It dies with you when you die. Think of it like a fire that powers a steam engine. When it dies, the engine dies. And you don't typically take it out of the steam engine. (This illustration is slightly flawed because you can poke a stick in there, light the end, and use it to start something else on fire.)
Tygur:
If your spirit is you life force and it dies when you die then jesus's must of died correct. But you say that god got a candle and lit it with Jesus Flame!
Nope the bible says " That after the resurection Jesus only showed himself to his deciples but he was in a different form. I.e Not human. He then accended to heaven where he was given control of Heaven and Earth. He said " He who has seen me has seen the father, he who want to see the father must go through me."
So he was a spirit when he died!
Luke 16 says:
19There was once a rich man who wore expensive clothes and every day ate the best food. 20But a poor beggar named Lazarus was brought to the gate of the rich man's house. 21He was happy just to eat the scraps that fell from the rich man's table. His body was covered with sores, and dogs kept coming up to lick them. 22The poor man died, and angels took him to the place of honor next to Abraham.d
The rich man also died and was buried. 23He went to helle and was suffering terribly. When he looked up and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side, 24he said to Abraham, "Have pity on me! Send Lazarus to dip his finger in water and touch my tongue. I'm suffering terribly in this fire."
25Abraham answered, "My friend, remember that while you lived, you had everything good, and Lazarus had everything bad. Now he is happy, and you are in pain. 26And besides, there is a deep ditch between us, and no one from either side can cross over."
27But the rich man said, "Abraham, then please send Lazarus to my father's home. 28Let him warn my five brothers, so they won't come to this horrible place."
29Abraham answered, "Your brothers can read what Moses and the prophetsf wrote. They should pay attention to that."
30Then the rich man said, "No, that's not enough! If only someone from the dead would go to them, they would listen and turn to God."
31So Abraham said, "If they won't pay attention to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even to someone who comes back from the dead."
So if you are a full believer in the bible tygur do you believe in that?
Back to the copying thing.
But still physically they are 2 people are they not and in the end they will be 2 people unless they're sharing the same brain!
If i had heart problems i can replace my heart. If i had something wrong with my brain i cant replace that! If i copied my brain and got rid of the bad one would i still be me?
To you i would be because humans recognise ppl via speech. physical appearences, names, thoughts etc.
But to me would i be the same person?
Does the brain contain the "soul"? Would "I" continue to live?
Tygur"Your soul is you. It's your physical body. It's yourself. "
I disagree your body is your body your soul is a part of you which no body knows where it is. It's the thing that is you.
I explained all that in my previous post. Jesus was not resurrected to a human body. He came back as a spirit creature. I said all that in my last post. How I could've gotten so confused into claiming he went into another human body I may bever know. But I disclaimed all that in my last post.Quote:
If your spirit is you life force and it dies when you die then jesus's must of died correct. But you say that god got a candle and lit it with Jesus Flame!
Nope the bible says " That after the resurection Jesus only showed himself to his deciples but he was in a different form. I.e Not human. He then accended to heaven where he was given control of Heaven and Earth. He said " He who has seen me has seen the father, he who want to see the father must go through me."
So he was a spirit when he died!
Yes, I am a full believer in the bible. Jesus was telling a story. You just quoted a parable told by Jesus. None of it is true. It's all symbolic.Quote:
So if you are a full believer in the bible tygur do you believe in that?
Physically, yes.. I'm going to make an illustration. I will be making this illustration up in my head and it isn't a view that I have. It's completely and utterly false. With that in mind, suppose the body and consciousnes are separate, but linked together somehow. Sort of like a pointer. The body would be pointing to the consciousness. Then if there are two bodies, they'd both be pointing to the same consciousness. Now suppose without a body pointing to it, a consciousness goes dormant, since it can't do anything without a body to manifest itself through. And if the body gets duplicated, both point to the same consciousness. This would be a case where the person would see with both bodies..Quote:
But still physically they are 2 people are they not and in the end they will be 2 people unless they're sharing the same brain!
Here's another one. Suppose everyone's brain resonates on a different frequency (this takes some imagination). And if a body gets duplicated, both brains would resonate with the same frequency and be linked that way.
There is just too much we don't know.
That is a critical question. If, as some believe, consiousness is not merely a brain function, how would you copy it?Quote:
Beacon
If i had something wrong with my brain i cant replace that! If i copied my brain and got rid of the bad one would i still be me?
If I took a snapshot of your brain and built up an exact replica, cell by cell, would it be a replica of you?
So he wasn't really resurrected attall then was he? The whole "miracle" of the resurrection was that he came back in the same body and not merely as a "spirit creature".Quote:
Tygur
Jesus was not resurrected to a human body. He came back as a spirit creature.
simonm
The whole "miracle" was that he came back at all. He was very much dead for 3 days.Quote:
So he wasn't really resurrected attall then was he? The whole "miracle" of the resurrection was that he came back in the same body and not merely as a "spirit creature".
But he only revealed himself to his disciples. More like they were sitting round in a cave wondering what to do (after their leader had died) and they saw a shadow in the corner and called it Jesus. How do we know it was Jesus. No one else saw this "thing".Quote:
The whole "miracle" was that he came back at all. He was very much dead for 3 days.
I think you'll find the definition of resurrection means comming back to life in the same body. Not in a duplicate body and not as a shodow creature.
I don't have the same definitions as you, you're assigning different properties to yours. If you say soul is your physical body, then why don't you say so then? To me my body may or may not be part of myself, also depending in what sentence you use it.Quote:
I think you used the wrong word. You mean what is commonly called the soul or spirit (while it is still in the body), right?
Your soul is you. It's your physical body. It's yourself.
Your spirit is your life-force. It dies with you when you die. Think of it like a fire that powers a steam engine. When it dies, the engine dies. And you don't typically take it out of the steam engine. (This illustration is slightly flawed because you can poke a stick in there, light the end, and use it to start something else on fire.)
Kedaman
Well, I only said 'I think your analogy is flawed' not that it is flawed.Quote:
Who are you to judge? At times I even wonder if I'm just not looking trough the eyes of a biological robot, experiencing the decisions of it as if they were mine, being a passive observer.
If you are, indeed, a passive observer and are being deluded that you are making decisions when you are actually receiving them from an external entity, could this entity be your consiousness? Surely you, the passive observer, is the consiousness even if it isn't your consiousness making the decisions?
You, the being that is aware (if not the decision maker), are the consious being. To have consiousness is to be in a state of awareness. OK, you can't tell if anything comming into your awareness is real or not but does it matter?
His apostles (I'm thinking you meant his apostles. There were only 12 of them, while his disciples were just anybody that had faith in him.) weren't the only ones he showed himself to. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul listed various times Jesus showed himself. In verse 6, it says Jesus showed himself to around five hundred people on one occasion.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
But he only revealed himself to his disciples. More like they were sitting round in a cave wondering what to do (after their leader had died) and they saw a shadow in the corner and called it Jesus. How do we know it was Jesus. No one else saw this "thing".
I think you'll find the definition of resurrection means comming back to life in the same body. Not in a duplicate body and not as a shodow creature.
I screwed up big time when I talked about that computer illustration and I regret it. I wasn't thinking straight. I should've said the same computer was being rebuilt. And I should've been saying that Jesus was resurrected as a spirit creature the whole time.
I looked in various definitions and it doesn't seem to matter how someone comes back to life for it to be called a "resurrection". Here are two definitions I found:
Quote:
to bring back (someone) to life, or bring back (something) into use or existence that had disappeared
To bring back to life; raise from the dead.
As I understood it, they were called his disciples as well.Quote:
I'm thinking you meant his apostles
As for the definitions of "resurrection" you found:
If Jesus' body was not brought back or raised then he wasn't resurrected (replacing it with a shadow creature doesn't count). :rolleyes:Quote:
To bring back to life; raise from the dead.
to bring back (someone) to life, or bring back (something) into use or existence that had disappeared
simonm
Yes, they were. But the way you were talking about them, it looked like you were talking about a small group of twelve instead of the much larger group that believed in Jesus. The apostles were also disciples, but not all disciples were apostles.Quote:
As I understood it, they were called his disciples as well.
You got that out of those definitions? How? Jesus himself was brought back as a spirit creature. That's what he was before being born on earth as a human. Jesus is a "someone" and he was brought back. His human body wasn't, but that doesn't mean he wasn't brought back, nor does it mean "resurrected" isn't a good word to use. What word would you prefer?Quote:
If Jesus' body was not brought back or raised then he wasn't resurrected (replacing it with a shadow creature doesn't count).
Tygur:
So Jesus was a spirit creature somehow either he morphed into a human or died and was re-incarnated as a human. Then he died as a human to become a spirit again!
So really if he was a spirit all along he didnt die at all! He just left the body when it's life stopped probably went a sunk some beers with god then came back down.
So jesus is living proof of spirits and what happens when you die. If you dont believe in heaven then you dont truly believe the bible! Only spirits or souls can go to heaven according to the bible that is!
Quote Tygur "Yes, I am a full believer in the bible. Jesus was telling a story. You just quoted a parable told by Jesus. None of it is true. It's all symbolic. "
Sounds a bit like the bible doesnt it! Quoted parables told by different people?
It's all just symbolic.
I agree with Keda on the definitions.
Simon:
Depends am i still living while your building it?
I persume not so i answer sort of yes. I will always be subject to your relevance and in what state my mind was in when you took this replica etc etc.
Which is my point how would you copy it? You wouldnt? But we dont know whether it is or not a brain function!
Beacon
In the beginning he was a spirit creature. Then he was born as a human child. (Don't ask me how, God has his ways) He wasn't a spirit in any way, shape, or form when he was living as a human. When he died, he died just like the rest of us. He didn't come out of his body because he wasn't a spirit creature then. Then a couple days later he was raised up in a spirit body.Quote:
So Jesus was a spirit creature somehow either he morphed into a human or died and was re-incarnated as a human. Then he died as a human to become a spirit again!
He wasn't a spirit all along. He was a spirit before and after his time on earth. But during those 33 (I think it was 33) years as a human, he was a human and not a spirit.Quote:
So really if he was a spirit all along he didnt die at all! He just left the body when it's life stopped probably went a sunk some beers with god then came back down.
Not all of it. But when someone in the bible says "Let me tell you a story" or something of that nature, whatever follows won't be true. But it would be true that the person told the story.Quote:
Sounds a bit like the bible doesnt it! Quoted parables told by different people?
It's all just symbolic.
"He wasn't a spirit all along. He was a spirit before and after his time on earth. But during those 33 (I think it was 33) years as a human, he was a human and not a spirit. "
How can you be so sure. Why didnt he just posess the human body! Like demons do supposedly!
Mary wasnt impregnated as such! Not by Joseph anway! No one did the deed apparently.
So in fact he died to become human then died again to become a spirit again. Surely he didnt die so many times!
He is a spirit can spirits die?
I doubt it!
Tygur quote "Not all of it. But when someone in the bible says "Let me tell you a story" or something of that nature, whatever follows won't be true. But it would be true that the person told the story."
But the Bible is just stories told by different people!
Why can you not believe the story in the bible but believe the bible isnt a story!
How can he posess a human body if there was none within Mary for him to posess? You yourself just said nobody impregnated Mary, and you were right about that. God put him in there. We all know it's possible.Quote:
How can you be so sure. Why didnt he just posess the human body! Like demons do supposedly!
Mary wasnt impregnated as such! Not by Joseph anway! No one did the deed apparently.
He died to become human? I never thought of it that way.. I guess so..Quote:
So in fact he died to become human then died again to become a spirit again.
Why not? Of course spirits can die. Of course, they don't die of old age, but I'm sure they can die..Quote:
Surely he didnt die so many times!
He is a spirit can spirits die?
I doubt it!
You believe your history book, right? (If you're not in school anymore or don't have a history book, think back to when you did have one) Your history book describes greek mythology. It says that people told those stories to others. I'm sure you don't believe in the myths described. But you do believe the history book is telling fact.Quote:
But the Bible is just stories told by different people!
Why can you not believe the story in the bible but believe the bible isnt a story!
That history book in the illustration can be likened to the bible. The bible wasn't passed down by word of mouth. It's a book.
"How can he posess a human body if there was none within Mary for him to posess? You yourself just said nobody impregnated Mary, and you were right about that. God put him in there. We all know it's possible. "
No god made one for him to posess!
What do spirits die of? They cant be shot, run over etc. Unless spirits get dieseases?
Ok but were does it state that it was a "story" told by jesus?
Isnt the bible just a third persons view of events and tellings?
So infact really it could be just a book of short stories which in context of the history book are the greek myths?
The history book is factual that the greeks told these stories and perhaps believed them.
Beacon
ok I see. First off, the bible doesn't say that's what happened. Also, if it did, it would clash with outher parts of the bible. If God made a baby in mary and then Jesus came in and posessed it, the baby would be completely robbed of its free will. God simply doesn't do that.Quote:
No god made one for him to posess!
I don't know how. It certainly is possible for God to kill any spirit creature. I don't know if they can kill each other or not..Quote:
What do spirits die of? They cant be shot, run over etc. Unless spirits get dieseases?
You can tell by the words he uses. "There was a certain rich man..." He's talking as if it's just a story. That's the same way you and I would start a story.Quote:
Ok but were does it state that it was a "story" told by jesus?
Some of it is third person. Nobody was there to witness the creation of the earth. Other parts of it are written by the people involved, such as the Gospels.Quote:
Isnt the bible just a third persons view of events and tellings?
Many people think so. I don't. It seems so obvious to me that it's fact.Quote:
So infact really it could be just a book of short stories which in context of the history book are the greek myths?
Of course, that's how I define consiousness, it is me, the observer of me. The decisionmaking me may or may not be extended either being a function of my brain, induced by my intelligence or as function of my consiciousness.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Well, I only said 'I think your analogy is flawed' not that it is flawed.
If you are, indeed, a passive observer and are being deluded that you are making decisions when you are actually receiving them from an external entity, could this entity be your consiousness? Surely you, the passive observer, is the consiousness even if it isn't your consiousness making the decisions?
You, the being that is aware (if not the decision maker), are the consious being. To have consiousness is to be in a state of awareness. OK, you can't tell if anything comming into your awareness is real or not but does it matter?
Non-physical? Isn't that something you can call non-existent? What else are there other than physical phenomenons? Illusions right?Quote:
If someone died and came back as a ghost (OK, I know you don't believe in ghosts and neither do I, but just suppose) then you wouldn't say they were resurrected would you?
Jesus' body was not brought back to life and it seems to me that a "shadow creature" is just another way of saying a ghost. It certainly implies something that is non-material or non-physical.
I don't know what else there is. I don't actually believe in ghosts or "shadow creatures" but that wasn't the point of my argument.Quote:
Non-physical? Isn't that something you can call non-existent? What else are there other than physical phenomenons? Illusions right?
Some people believe, however, that consiousness is non physical. When I say it is non-physical, I mean that it's causes are at least partially non-mechanistic.
Simonm & keda:
This may interest you! There are already groups dealing with what they call Mind Uploading where they upload the mind, conscienceness etc. onto a computer chip!
There are 4 procedures in consideration to upload the mind.
Microtome Procedure - slice brain into bits and scan it!
Nanoreplacement Procedure - inject tiny computers into brain and each will take place of a neuron.
Moravec Procedure - robot develops sensitive hand the figures out what each brain cell does.
Nondestructive Procedures - include gamma ray holography,Magnetic Resonance Imaging etc.
Now thats the science behind it. Here's some answers on the phylisophical issues.
After uploading the question i put forth was would it be me or not?
Is somewhat answered at this web site!
http://www.ibiblio.org/jstrout/uploa...lidentity.html
Other keywords u could search for Extropia and Mind Uploading.
tygur:
"Some of it is third person. Nobody was there to witness the creation of the earth. Other parts of it are written by the people involved, such as the Gospels. "
So it's a first person narrative as well!
"ok I see. First off, the bible doesn't say that's what happened. Also, if it did, it would clash with outher parts of the bible. If God made a baby in mary and then Jesus came in and posessed it, the baby would be completely robbed of its free will. God simply doesn't do that. "
No the bible seems to be very vage on how it all came to be!
But it wasnt a true baby because he wasnt impregnated like normal babies come to be.
There is no reference to mary doing the deed with God!
It says that Jesus was born. It doesn't say that some baby possessed by Jesus was born. Also, Jesus had no memory of his past life before being born as a human until he was baptized (at age 30, if I remember right). He still had to learn to walk and talk.Quote:
No the bible seems to be very vage on how it all came to be!
You're right. There isn't. It wasn't necessary. Surely you've heard of test-tube babies (in vitro fertilization). They're true babies, right?Quote:
But it wasnt a true baby because he wasnt impregnated like normal babies come to be.
There is no reference to mary doing the deed with God!
Maybe I should say it outright. Jesus was an angel. Revelation refers to him as the archangel, meaning he was elevated higher than the others.Quote:
If someone died and came back as a ghost (OK, I know you don't believe in ghosts and neither do I, but just suppose) then you wouldn't say they were resurrected would you?
Jesus' body was not brought back to life and it seems to me that a "shadow creature" is just another way of saying a ghost. It certainly implies something that is non-material or non-physical.
About someone coming back as a ghost, it depends. If they changed over to being a ghost immediately after dying, it isn't a resurrection because they never really died. They just changed form. But if someone died and stayed dead for a period of time, then came back as a ghost, then they got resurrected.
"It says that Jesus was born. It doesn't say that some baby possessed by Jesus was born. "
No but "if" jesus was an angel b4hand how else to you propose he turned into a baby!
He died and was re-incarnated as a baby. But you say that cant happen because there is no afterlife! No spirits or souls! so he couldnt of been re-incarnated as a human.
He would have to of morphed into one or possesd one!
"You're right. There isn't. It wasn't necessary. Surely you've heard of test-tube babies (in vitro fertilization). They're true babies, right?"
Yes i've heard of them but not in 20 b.c!
Also who was she impregnated by? There still needs to be another party besides Mary!
Beacon
First off, you're the only one who said he died before being born as a human. I don't know the specifics and the bible doesn't go into it. He was born as a baby human child. He could've been "morphed" into an embryo/zygote/whatever. He could've died and been brought back in preborn human form. He could've even been "reincarnated". I said people don't get reincarnated and that they are simply gone when they die, but I didn't say God couldn't make a creature reincarnate.Quote:
No but "if" jesus was an angel b4hand how else to you propose he turned into a baby!
He died and was re-incarnated as a baby. But you say that cant happen because there is no afterlife! No spirits or souls! so he couldnt of been re-incarnated as a human.
He would have to of morphed into one or possesd one!
People couldn't do it back then, but why do you insist that God couldn't do it? There couldn't have been another party (a human one, anyway) because Jesus had to be born as a perfect human. Any human would've passed down imperfection. God made an embryo/zygote/whatever and put it into Mary. (I suppose he could've also made a little sperm cell and had it do its job. The bible isn't very specific on how it happened.) Why is that so hard to understand?Quote:
Yes i've heard of them but not in 20 b.c!
Also who was she impregnated by? There still needs to be another party besides Mary!
Why i find it difficult to understand is because you put it down to this "but why do you insist that God couldn't do it? ".
I dont insist he couldnt do it!
Why do you insist that he did it your way and not my way?
You say the bible doesnt really say what went on so it's just persumptions based on the limited resources we have.
Why is your "idea" so more right than mine. If god can do all this stuff why wouldnt he do it my way. Create a human body to transport the spirit and soul of Jesus!
"I said people don't get reincarnated and that they are simply gone when they die, but I didn't say God couldn't make a creature reincarnate. "
Arent you contradicting yourself a bit. You say when people die thats it there dead but then god can re-incarnate them. But if there dead how? Coz god can do everything right?
He has nothing to re-incarnate them with after 3 days, or whenever god may choose, of a person bieng dead they are pretty well decayed.
How'd this sperm get into Mary?
Beacon
The bible says that Jesus died. If it was done your way, Jesus would've never died.Quote:
Why do you insist that he did it your way and not my way?
You say the bible doesnt really say what went on so it's just persumptions based on the limited resources we have.
Remember that computer illustration? God could simply remember what someone was and rebuild him/her that way. Or it could be more complicated. Why wouldn't God be able to do "everything"?Quote:
Arent you contradicting yourself a bit. You say when people die thats it there dead but then god can re-incarnate them. But if there dead how? Coz god can do everything right?
He has nothing to re-incarnate them with after 3 days, or whenever god may choose, of a person bieng dead they are pretty well decayed.
umm..God can do everything :DQuote:
How'd this sperm get into Mary?
I didn't say it was the sperm thing. I said it could've been a sperm. I actually think God put in a fertilized egg or maybe something further along the process such as an embryo. God simply did it. I don't know how. I can see no reason why God wouldn't be able to do it, tho.
Everyone
I'm going to be gone until sunday night (I'm in New York time). I might post a couple more messages this morning, but I'm going to be gone by 6 (It's 3:37 right now).
I don't know why I'm bothering to continue arguing. All you chistians believe different things and are contradicting each other all the time.
I had been told by other christians that Jesus was one with the father and the holy spirit. Basically saying that he IS God.Quote:
Maybe I should say it outright. Jesus was an angel. Revelation refers to him as the archangel, meaning he was elevated higher than the others.
As for the resurrection, you know as well as I do that when people are told about the resurrection they are led to believe in images of a human diying then being raised back from the dead as himself and not as an angel, a shadow creature or even in a different body.
You are stretching the definition of "resurrection" to the limits and I must admit am highly sceptical.
I agree simonm exactly!:)
Tygur: Perhaps Jesus body died his spirit continues to live in heaven as the ruler of heaven and earth!
Why cannot we continue to live in heaven when our bodies die?
Never said God cant do everything but i said why would he do it your way????
tygur:"Remember that computer illustration? God could simply remember what someone was and rebuild him/her that way. Or it could be more complicated. Why wouldn't God be able to do "everything"? "
Purely speculative!!!