False. Salvation is not a gamble. Where's your argument? Life is a gamble but not salvation. To gamble like that is to lose yourself and go to he'll. You have no argument and it was up to you to provide one

Suppose you find a tribe that says you will have infinite pain if you don't follow their religion. Do you cease to be Christian and join their religion because the odds are greater? It makes no sense. We follow logic in life and love in religion. There is no room for gambles in religion if you want true religion. If you had proof God wants us to follow a gamble why not give it

Faith is not a gamble, it's a choice of the heart based on love, not phony logic of a Jansenist

Pascals wager is a trolls device, asking people to accept a bargain while assuming bargains don't lead to Hell

There is no way to know what happens at death from our fear of it because our fear might be of the beginning but not the end. A fetus might fear birth but not life.

I would also add that escape from death by materialism is a false step too. As Stephen Hawking applied the no boundary hypothesis to the universe and it's beginning, we can apply these imagery number systems to the end of life and speculate that life continue forever even though without a boundary. Consciousness continues in the body even after amputation, but instead of a limb what it it's your whole body? Where else can consciousness reside? Nobody knows.

Time

matter <> experience
matter <> experience
matter <> experience
matter <> experience
No matter <> experience

So we pass thru time experiencing matter. But is conscious experience always based on the matter staying biological? I say the experience can live on in the body, go into quantum realms, be everywhere, and feel anything. Just because the body changes state this doesn't mean experience can't continue. The experience at the end of death is eternal as the consciousness experiences a new way of feeling. You can't stop consciousness from experiencing even though experience springs from the body. As long as there is a universe the experience, the consciousness, can continue

Then dying itself is experienced in body and soul

Perhaps Buddha would say you divide in yourself because you are divided. Idn

A soul cannot exist without a state. It's state is itself

I don't publish is journals, no. But this is a forum for everyone

So instead of talking about simplicity, you should have said you had direct access to the spiritual. And you do! This is because everything is spiritual.

However, a soul implies the person is divided between two principles as it's essential components. That is not something, though, that is experienced in life. Identity is unity

There is no denying that you are your body. This is my premise because it's actually self evident unlike yours. Something simple means it's nothing because without parts is nothing. All self evident

Indivisible means simple

I deny the first premise which is that souls are simple which we were trying to prove.

Consciousness means mind

Where's the argument. You define a soul then assume it's existence from it's definition. Is it an ontological argument?

The soul is not simple. Consciousness is a subject, not an object. No soul

Matter is in time just as consciousness is in time

Untimately for Hegel conciousness only truly exists as love which transcends matter because matter cannot explain anything about it whatsoever. The difference between matter and experience is obvious. The very logical categories we think in of matter causing sensation has to be question from the very root

The core of reality lies within consciousness which is social.

"Consciousness finds that it immediately is and is not another consciousness, as also that this other is for itself only when it cancels itself as existing for itself, and has self-existence only in the self-existence of the other." Hegel

Heidegger's main point, I believe, was that matter AND time bring about consciousness. A mechanical linear view of matter won't get to the core reality on consciousness

There is much to be said about the relationship between matter and consciousness. We are a body but consciousness might not rise from the body in a dependent way.

What if the experience surrounding "death" is eternal and the body dying doesn't have a way to delete the eternity once it has happened in its own time?

Maybe forgetting yourself leads you to try to kill your son in hiding

I do believe that the mind makes concepts of the world and these are needed for morality (imperatives on how we treat people) but nominalism for me is just recognizing that "two rabbits" are rabbits because of similarities between two particulars and there is no thing they are sharing between them. It's just about being honest about the individuality of objects

Objects have infinite divisibility (the "finite" means discrete which means limit of infinite process, hence multiple objects), extension, and palpability. What makes a thing of common nature is not clear. Evolution has no definite definition of what a nature is and it gets harder to define when with objects that are not alive. As a nominalist I define objects by cohesion but there is no metaphysical necessity to this. I don't see the human mind ending by the realization that everything in reality is just a bunch of stuff. It can be a spiritual awakening as well. From materialism I've discovered that although I have identity as a consciousness, my consciousness is nothing. This "anatman" is very contrary to Aristotle who though the souk was the form of the body.

Allow me to clarify that Zeno proved everything is infinite in the universe and Aristotle responded that it's only potentially infinite, showing that he really didn't believe matter had true parts. He was an idealist like Plato

From my perspective Aristotle didn't believe the world exists. He says the perishable needs some foundation, that Zeno was wrong about motion, and that objects are made of two principles. He seems to have been in his head instead of in reality

I don't think change can cause time. Some say entropy causes time, which translates in more general terms to change causes time. That is why it's called a block universe. It's contains itself in a circle with no beyond north and south poles. Time happens in the middle for us, A time bracketed by B Time

Anatman suggests we come from our body but death has nothing to do with consciousness

You are thinking of yourself as object instead of treating yourself phenomenologically

It seems to me that Aristotle's God, which is a final not efficient cause of an eternal system, is in accord with Leibniz's God of fulgarations. Aquinas changed Aristotle by claiming he was wrong to say God is not the efficient cause of the world and that there could be multiple Gods. He provides his arguments to back them up. But I see a major flaw in Aquinas's argument. If God is omniscient than he knows what he will do. Except that God's choose to create is not due to his nature. So then in that case we have God completely freely choosing to create, instead of just loving himself freely and necessarily. Yet God knows he acted thusly in creating and thus knowing is knowledge. Aquinas says God is his knowledge, so the free choice to create would change God's nature in Aquinas's system!!

Time is not linear. To live now is to live the after life

Have you heard of the philosopher Tim Freke? He wrote a book about Jesus and gnostic that a lot of people didn't like, but his ideas in the book Soul Story are like yours. His talk with Ken Wilbur was interesting too

While on a train you might feel stationary because of the "atmosphere" of the train walls. My position of empiricism is that we do see things how they are but not completely how they are.

You seem to be avoiding saying there is a consciousness that is and has always been on a higher level then humans. Does the intention of the big bang imply this consciousness or our consciousness

To think that experience is a something coming from the body leads one to an experience of dissolution. You are attaching yourself to the body experientially by wishing death. To wish life is to see body and consciousness as not identical for the reason that experience is empty of a nature while a body has a nature and substance. What I am saying is not really dualism or parallism because the body is who a person is but experience and bodily identity are not the same except in thought

Non-existence is not a state. It's nothing, so nothing can't be because it is not anything at all. The afterlife flows from Descartes's cogito. Body is substance, experience is states.

Consciousness is not an object or a subject but experience. We experience life as a body but can experience life in an alternative way too. All that is required is for the biology to die.

I agree with your opening statement. Consciousness is permanent. Even while asleep you still have some hold unto the fact you exist

I would add that the universe doesn't have to see for us to see (and have purpose)