Good to know you and your uncle's cow are same.

Free will is too plain I guess. We need another term to explain to you the difference between animals and humans. Maybe self-reflect. But for now, I leave it that, because I do not know how I can educate you.

Not to downplay the Islamic view, but surely the brains of animals like chicken have been studied sufficiently to conclude that chickens are not interested in heaven, various parts of the brain that have functions such as motor, reflex, cerebellum e.t.c show that animals do not have “sapience” and the correlating brain activity, in the sections of the brain where it happens for humans. Do not mistake the “begwoook” of a chicken for thinking, even a machine can be made to respond in the same way after a beating, all about messages fired to various muscles from various parts of brain e.t.c, in other words in tychos “simulation”, we can conclude chicken are just like machines in the “video game”, for the use of the character “man”, for entertainment and eating, kuku fry, today we can make much more intelligent machines than chicken, and some that do things better than man, and they don’t care about ‘heaven’ for sure, and never will, they are ATHIEST like the chicken, dogs, pigs etc, i dont think tychos "scientist" will resurrect chicken either, he can tell us.

The dullest human being will give a varied communication response for many types of prompts, he will ask for food water e.t.c no animal, notwithstanding the “hundreds of millions of years” it has preexisted man can do that, speak like we do! Even with hearing and sight, the animals cannot outdo a person born deaf, blind and dumb who will find a way to communicate using signs with “people” whom they live with but have never seen or heard; you cannot say therefore it is for lack of “vocal cords” that animals don’t communicate, one or the other would "learn" to use signs to communicate. And as people have a tendency to be unequal say in “intelligence”, music, muscle, the same is seen in animals, among horses there are better runners, more “tamable” horses among horses, elephants e.t.c , sending messages from the animal to the human often appears simpler than all the ‘taming’, as for example how sure we are for instance we can communicate with aliens (from astrobiologist view and even nasa has sent communication to aliens) even without meeting them, you cannot make any animal tame to speak like the “stupidest child”

What is more interesting is that the humans brain does not only respond to the “physical” or instinctual world, but very heavily to things like emotions, ideas, notions, thoughts which are the driving force, good and bad, evil and good, there is no “evil” or “good” in the jungle, i think this leaves man in a SINGULAR position, with regards to this notion of heaven, no need bringing chicken, goats e.t.c to it.

OK, now that I am up off the floor.

I can't say whether chicken are interested in heaven or not, I have never asked them. But let us say they are not. This would put them in good company with some humans - atheists, satanists, some scientists etc - who by their own professing,are equally not interested in heaven. What happens to the rest of your argument then?

But I am a small time chicken farmer and I can confirm one thing that chickens and humans seem to share (this from close observation). Self preservation.

It seems that both chicken and humans would like to stick around. Even those humans who express abiding interest in heaven are not in any hurry to get there.

So, back to Masukuma's point, how different are chicken and we?

is the existence of an afterlife premised on consciousness of it's existence?

Is love/hate e.t.c premised on the consciousness of its existence, does that apply to a psycopath, does he "know" empathy for example, ama yeye ni mnyama tu, does the psycopath not knowing empathy eliminate the conscious existence of empathy, please show me how they look or a youtube video of "life", what is consiousness? Ebu niseme sielewi hii swali kabisa but in tychos 'scientific resurrection', the technical capacity to resurrect lays the premises for resurrection, that's conscious, it presents the scenario where any previous human character can be downloaded, or re-run or reloaded into the simulation, 'Adam and Eve' can be resurrected 'scientifically' as they are "stored" in the memory and are still therefore technically alive, they were certainly candidates for resurrection when they lived, and so consciousness of how the simulation works is the premise for afterlife, automatically making resurrection a pre-existing "fact", irregardless of when it begins. In 'reality', no such "physical" device is known, but definite declarations of the same "spiritual" concepts have been made, making them (IF TRUE), 'conscious declarations' of an afterlife to those who know them as, some go as far as to say they have visited the heavenly places, unfortunately i have no youtube video to paste of this afterlife or any "proof", 'spiritual matters' are not like stones, food, and other physical things, or "subject to science" just as love cannot be measured scientifically yet is a real concept, people are free and the feel what they feel. Freedom for one to have their own spiritual beliefs is for me a very important tenant.