how bad exactly is death in a worldview in which no one really *dies* and there's such a thing as resurrection powers?

If we 1) believe there is an omnipotent/all creating God outside time, who experiences/ knows/ creates all out of his own being; and 2) we (as his creation) experience emotion------> then how can we not personify God with human characteristics? He is the source of all those Characteristics.

1) Dying before reaching the age of reason must entail some sort of suffering...

2) Also this "test" you refer to is not a "1 student taking 1 quiz" scenario- that innocent child's death could be part of the suffering or moral journey of countless others in a complex web that only an omnipotent being could ever comprehend.

It seems to me that Jesus usually becomes emotional as a result of someones lack of faith or frustration out of misunderstanding of his teaching- Perhaps he is crying because what he knows and experiences is so clear (the reason for Lazarus's death and his forthcoming miracle), but those around him cannot see the big picture yet.--dunno just a thought

Ah Tyler, this bear of little brain really doesn't understand your line of reasoning other than it's to say "I'm right you're wrong". Unfortunately not all propositions can be put into one-liners for web comments, except perhaps by Oscar Wilde. Again I suggest to you: broaden your horizons, smooth down the sharp edges of your prejudices and read a book. I have, and it's changed my outlook considerably. And I do agree, this conversation is not enlightening. You're not saying anything new that I can learn from, so I will terminate this exchange.

With all due respect my friend perhaps if you cannot defend this idea yourself then it is you who should go back and try to understand it more clearly. In which case you could be satisfied that the ideas you are sharing actually have some weight behind them, or not, and we could have a much more engaging/interesting conversation than you just deferring your argument to a book. We are not static, our brains change, but when we decide on some absolute truth about ourselves (perhaps in regards to intelligence), that truth will generally remain as such. I may not believe in God, but in spite (or perhaps because) of this, I am a true believer in the power of belief, which has incredible power. Especially when you figure out how to manipulate it to your own advantage instead of wasting it on a comforting idea.

I totally agree. If it was just separation, the mourning would be short and painless. What is a few years or, at most, decades compared with blissful eternity? Particulary encouraging would be deaths of pre-age-of-reason children, as they all seem to get a free pass to heaven (at least according to the revised Catholic teaching). If a child lives longer he loses that guarantee and becomes a candidate to hell. Any mourning caused by separation would be quickly quenched or overshadowed by immense joy that your child is already with the Lord and will enjoy ETERNITY in Heaven. You just have to wait a few years to join him... Yet, judging by the actual mourning that goes on in case of a child's death... there isn't a parent on earth who really believes all that. Deep down probably everyone suspects that the end is the end...

Transhumanism involves the belief that humans can become immortal through technology. Basically by downloading our brain patterns. The trouble I have with this is that there would seem to be no continuity. This seems similar to what hylomorphism is, that the self is the pattern that makes up the human. I suppose that the difference might be that transhumanists are materialists, where you may not be. But both seem to think that the self can be reconstructed or transferred into a new body. Transhumanists think this can be done on naturalism with a robot body, Catholics with a supernaturally resurrected body.

You'll have to explain that one.

I know physicists who have spent their professional lives studying these things and they have no problem believing in God and in the immateriality of the soul.

Carrol does not make a valid argument against the soul because he does not even define what he means by it, much less show that what he means is what, say, a Catholic philosopher means. He just dismisses the question.

The import of this video is to establish the claim that we can now explain from the bottom the large-scale physical world that can be detected through the five senses. We all already knew such a world exists and we now know it better.