Religion

You know how there's some people who always want to sound right no matter what?

And they'll start arguing almost any point and even start making up shit just to sound right?

Here is the problem I have with nonexistence. In order to experience anything, something must exist. If nonexistent, something would spend no self-observed time experiencing nonexistence (an extrapolition I made from observing that when asleep and not dreaming, no time seemed to pass, while time passed in the outside world - in effect, I had "lept over" something like 5 and 3/4 hours by sleeping 6 hours, with 15 minutes spent dreaming). Now, when someone dies, nonexistance may well occur. However, how the heck is he or she supposed to have a next experience? He or she doesn't experience time passing, or doesn't observe time at all; the next existence would necessarily bring the next experience, be it 1000 years from now or 10 years from now, be it as an amoeba or a star or a computer or an extraterrestial. But this raises an ADDITIONAL question: if there is no soul, how does existence pass from point A to point B? However, science has failed to prove the existence of any such thing as a soul. In other words, I dunno why I'm me, or what occurs in one's own point of view when one dies, or why I'm not some other person, or why I AM anyhow. Experimental science and experience don't match. So how do you propose reconciling the two viewpoints?