How does it retain the initial chance?

Let's suppose it is.
And you passed this infinitely divisible line, just as you pass from one infinitely divisible digit to another.

Is there an issue?

Very well, ant. Open your head, and I will pour the knowledge into it.

Numbers are infinitely divisible.
A line is infinitely divisible??? Zeno's paradox — TheMadFool

Where's the issue?

I did exactly what you asked for, in noting that the afterlife is spiritual by mechanism of The Word. That's the overlaying motif of John, bluntly established in John 3.

As is noted in 1Cor15:44
"it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body."
What spiritual body refers to is soul.

Please pay attention.

Internal to mind, meaning aspect, which includes retrospect.

You suffer because you're not grateful.

Appreciate the time you spend complaining, as you could have been burning alive this very moment - like someone else probably is.

Don't be so impatient to make claims when there's so little you've seen and done.

For what you have.

Unsurprisingly your impatience leads you astray.

Suffering is a choice. Many choose to sulk and complain, yet there are others who are grateful and appreciative.

Suffering is a choice.

Page one.

This is why we say, by the way, that nominalists about abstracts/abstractions reject that there are any real abstracts. ("Real" there amounts to "objective" or "external to mind.") — Terrapin Station

Fair enough.
I'll just add not necessarily, and leave it at that.

Nominalism and conceptualism can accept possibilities all they want, but they don’t to my knowledge give adequate accounts of them. — AJJ

As established, they cannot.

to account for conceived possibilities is to account for those we haven’t conceived as well, i.e. they’re being accounted for in general, not case by case. — AJJ

It isn't.
But I wish to ask, do you mean as in if there are conceived possibilities it follows that there are unconceived ones as well?

But consider I'm not deliberately being difficult and you simply don't get it.

In the same way a well written manual on riding a bicycle is worthless if the rider doesn't innately 'get it'.

Or the punchline of a joke.

I’d say we do have experience of possibility, of an indirect sort: the sense that things could have been different and the often unpredictable nature of events. — AJJ

That's known possibilities of retrospect.
That's what Conceptualism focuses on - missing links via rearrangement. Hence it views Past and Present.

Whereas Nominalism focuses entirely on the Present, disregarding not experienced rearrangements.

In simple terms:
Nominalism is merely an accounting. Present
Conceptualism mixes and matches. Dealing with present and past.

But neither accounts for the unknown future possibilities. That's the myopia.

The unknown can neither be physically nor mentally represented, but it can be accepted.
Does it seem clear now?

Then here is a simple question.

If I wrote something, and you don't understand it - does the responsibility of understanding not ultimately rest with you?
Leading a horse to water and all that.

It would seem your audience is rather faithless - or maybe a bunch of ants?

In order to attain clarity as to the matter of doors, we must be inclined to open all doors to the matter - even doors that on the forefront appear not as doors.
Should we wish to broaden our awareness, we must be willing to carefully measure every supposed absurdity.

So perhaps it's just a matter of patience?

That's no fun.
Tangling yourself up in an effort to untangle is my method of exploration~

If you've ever any mysterious amalgamations, do share~

Perhaps the issue lies with this 'direct experience'? As I've not spoken of direct or indirect, but merely experience - and without experience, naming and explaining is impossible, as the very acts entail experience.

And to discuss an 'unknown possibility' - an unknown possibility is required, discerned through a shared border with known possibility.

It appears to me as though you've got the problems backwards?

You could likewise call it 'future', as despite existing, it is a yet unexperienced possibility.

Does the myopia of the two seem apparent now?

Do you find the explanation of 'real' as experience, unsatisfactory?

It is so - we may outline something we've no experience of as real, but we may not name it, as we've no experience of its content.

The two hinge on this inability to name as to wholly disregard possibilities, whereas realism accepts possibilities with disregard to naming.

An allusion can be made to the 'unheard sound'.
If a sound is unheard, does it exist? It does, its existence is a prerequisite to the question - leaving it merely unheard, hence not perceptibly experienced.

Fubar Castell.

That would be the explanation, that possibilities are present but inaccessible, hence rejected.

Both frames of possibilities fall prey to objectivity, as they would foremost have to be objective, prior to moulding their limits; hence the matryoshka.

This rejection is not a rejection of the existence of possibilities outside of those frames, but a rejection of such a description - due to lack of experience; hence layered acuity - like with anatomy, cells, atoms, etc.

I offered the Matryoshka, as I think it would be the most apt explanation of change and limitations.

Please just don't calculate my medicine dosage — TheMadFool

It's 1/7 proportionately - liquid to sulphate.

Then 8 +16 = Chromium, and by context 'Apple'.

Check.

How do you eliminate the impossible?

I would deem it an explanation of layered acuity, as the possibilities technically remain the same throughout states, but some turn practically inaccessible.

Let's consider the three as a Matryoshka.

Nominalism is the smallest container, Conceptualism is the next in line and hence forth.

What would this explanation be lacking?

Likewise, what would you say to substituting 'real' in case for Nominalism and Conceptualism with 'perceptible'?

They function like a man locked within a room, who holds no experience of events outside.
They function out of imperceptibility.

absolutely no case — schopenhauer1

Absolutely?

In the scenario in question the choice is between 100% chance of severe suffering (and death) or a slight chance of severe suffering for someone else. In this case it is permissible to procreate.

But could you at least end this on a high note and answer the question?

Skin versus meat.

Do you agree you are immersed in space?

And then we come around again - you open up the wall, to drive your car out.
Why do you favour one over the other?

Doesn't matter.
Egg with or without a shell is egg.

Please, pay attention.
You've been following so earnestly, that you forgot to stop and notice - I'm not making a distinction, as one would be utterly worthless.

It's all just a reference to an omission.
And the omission is context.
Look at the first question I asked in this thread.

And I'm pointing out to you that this metaphysical concept is not objective reality but its composite.

You, along with the aforementioned proposition are composed of objective reality - and if you were not, you would be inconceivable, and thus void.

There is no choice in the matter - it is inescapable.

And it does.
Are you suggesting the imperceptibility of Superman denies this?

I don't see it that way. I don't see any reason to just repeat my arguments. — T Clark

It's simple.

Without an objective reality - there's nothing to base your question on, and it is void.

The very rejection of an objective reality denotes an objective reality as a prerequisite.
How could you come to reject what isn't? You would be rejecting nothing.

What in my explanation do you find unsatisfactory?

Their transition merely requires space.

Specifically the resurrection of Lazarus falls outside of those terms, due to the timeframe.

A bodily resurrection would be within three days, past this period the soul departs for Sheol where it loses all personification.

That Lazarus' soul would be called back despite this, is a demonstration of the perseverance of soul.

Jesus' own raising repeats this, and calls to mind that the man crucified next to him would share in this.

The chronology is a bit messed up if you read it straight, but the motif of the immortal soul and clay vessel is quite apparent.

What else would you have?