Cryogenics

[Oghams Law]

I had a thought today prompted by the current news involving the case of the 14 year old in the U.K.. If it one day becomes possible to bring back someone who has been cryogenically frozen will this prove that there exists no soul and therefore no after life? Surely it would be the end of the road for religion..

[Billys Boots]

We live in hope ...

[omaghjoe]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

[muppet]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

You will have to wait a few hundred years for proof!

[omaghjoe]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

You will have to wait a few hundred years for proof!

Except generally speaking decisions in courts are made on the information thats available....sure at that rate of going someone could use it in defence of murder becasue there might be a way to bring the victim back to life in 100 years

[muppet]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

You will have to wait a few hundred years for proof!

Except generally speaking decisions in courts are made on the information thats available....sure at that rate of going someone could use it in defence of murder becasue there might be a way to bring the victim back to life in 100 years

Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not. All you have to do is prove the murder.

Promising to do something in hundreds of years is something different entirely.

[armaghniac]

I had a thought today prompted by the current news involving the case of the 14 year old in the U.K.. If it one day becomes possible to bring back someone who has been cryogenically frozen will this prove that there exists no soul and therefore no after life? Surely it would be the end of the road for religion..

Not a very insightful comment. Presumably God already knows that that the person will be unfrozen and will deal with the afterlife on that basis.

[omaghjoe]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

You will have to wait a few hundred years for proof!

Except generally speaking decisions in courts are made on the information thats available....sure at that rate of going someone could use it in defence of murder becasue there might be a way to bring the victim back to life in 100 years

Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not. All you have to do is prove the murder.

Promising to do something in hundreds of years is something different entirely.

"Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not" Are you sure about that? Is it written into law? Has it been tested in the courts? If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you? Death is considered permanent by society and the courts. Murder is a crime based on that premise, if you could be brought back then the penalty would likely be much less severe

And of course its different its pretty obvious I wasnt trying to say it was the same (strawman). What I was saying is that it would set a precedent that potential future developments could be considered feasible evidence, and that death is not permanent as it is considered now.

[muppet]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

You will have to wait a few hundred years for proof!

Except generally speaking decisions in courts are made on the information thats available....sure at that rate of going someone could use it in defence of murder becasue there might be a way to bring the victim back to life in 100 years

Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not. All you have to do is prove the murder.

Promising to do something in hundreds of years is something different entirely.

"Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not" Are you sure about that? Is it written into law? Has it been tested in the courts? If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you? Death is considered permanent by society and the courts. Murder is a crime based on that premise, if you could be brought back then the penalty would likely be much less severe

And of course its different its pretty obvious I wasnt trying to say it was the same (strawman). What I was saying is that it would set a precedent that potential future developments could be considered feasible evidence, and that death is not permanent as it is considered now.

Your argument destroys the entire Christian Theology.

If Christ was brought back, then the Jews didn't crucify him did they? 

Ops.

[armaghniac]

Your argument destroys the entire Christian Theology.

If Christ was brought back, then the Jews didn't crucify him did they? 

Ops.

They had full intent to do so, they just hadn't reckoned on his Da'.

[muppet]

Your argument destroys the entire Christian Theology.

If Christ was brought back, then the Jews didn't crucify him did they? 

Ops.

They had full intent to do so, they just hadn't reckoned on his Da'.

I agree it was murder, but OJ doesn't: "If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you?"

[omaghjoe]

The first thing I would note is that these guys are so far away from bringing someone back that they should really be taken up for fraud.

But suppose we do, we would also need to hear what the person had to say what their experience was when frozen before jumping to any conclusions.

Suppose they said they had no experience it would appear to give credence to no spiritual element to a person. However then you'd have to ask the questions what do you remember from your prefrozen life? Do you feel like the same person? If the person remember something or everything from their "past life" you would have to ask how did they remember it? I mean if all brain activity ceased for years or decades how could they remember something? Can they walk or Talk? If so how?
Also did they feel time passed, they shouldnt as they wouldnt be experiencing space time

Then suppose they remember nothing and they feel like a are a new person, does that give credence to the soul and that the body is just a vessel?

Also no senario gives an answer or even indication to the question of what our conscious experience of life is emotion, colour, taste etc.

In my view whatever the outcome it would likely pose more questions than answers

You will have to wait a few hundred years for proof!

Except generally speaking decisions in courts are made on the information thats available....sure at that rate of going someone could use it in defence of murder becasue there might be a way to bring the victim back to life in 100 years

Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not. All you have to do is prove the murder.

Promising to do something in hundreds of years is something different entirely.

"Murder is illegal whether you bring the person back or not" Are you sure about that? Is it written into law? Has it been tested in the courts? If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you? Death is considered permanent by society and the courts. Murder is a crime based on that premise, if you could be brought back then the penalty would likely be much less severe

And of course its different its pretty obvious I wasnt trying to say it was the same (strawman). What I was saying is that it would set a precedent that potential future developments could be considered feasible evidence, and that death is not permanent as it is considered now.

Your argument destroys the entire Christian Theology.

If Christ was brought back, then the Jews didn't crucify him did they? 

Ops.

False premise followed up with a non sequitur

Your a fallacy machine Muppet

[muppet]

You said this: "If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you?"

Do you believe it or not?

[omaghjoe]

You said this: "If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you?"

Do you believe it or not?

It isn't a question of what I believe, it was a postulate Within a hypothetical legal scenario. And  within that context someone who is dead  could not be considered dead (in the current meaning) if they where going to brought back to life. If not it would mean the person has to get a new legal identity, new name, new DOB, new parents....unlikely I feel. And even if you do get a knew identity the crime of killing someone would be considered less severe if they could be brought back to life. But if you disagree with it within that context be my guest no one really knows as its Hypothetical and actually not possible.

And anyway outside of the context which we were discussing which you are trying to relate whether that person is truly the same person or not is the discussion that the OP is trying to have.

Besides I dont understand how it affects Christian theology in the slightest, perhaps you could explain?

[muppet]

You said this: "If you can be brought back then they arent really dead are you?"

Do you believe it or not?

It isn't a question of what I believe, it was a postulate Within a hypothetical legal scenario. And  within that context someone who is dead  could not be considered dead (in the current meaning) if they where going to brought back to life. If not it would mean the person has to get a new legal identity, new name, new DOB, new parents....unlikely I feel. And even if you do get a knew identity the crime of killing someone would be considered less severe if they could be brought back to life. But if you disagree with it within that context be my guest no one really knows as its Hypothetical and actually not possible.

And anyway outside of the context which we were discussing which you are trying to relate whether that person is truly the same person or not is the discussion that the OP is trying to have.

Besides I dont understand how it affects Christian theology in the slightest, perhaps you could explain?

You wanted to do these cryogenic people for fraud.

When I joked that you would have to wait for hundreds of years for proof of this fraud, you used the logical fallacy that my argument could be used as a defence for murder, 100 years afterwards the murder if the body was revived. When, presumably, the murderer would also be dead, unless of course they were cryogenically preserved as well. In which case it would disprove the fraud claim. But I digress....

Anyway I ran with your fallacy, for the laugh, and pointed out that if you are arguing that - if a body is revived after a murder, then there was no murder - where does that leave the crucification?