Interesting factual questions

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

We can agree on facts like the color of the sky,

I assume that the blind and colour blind would probably beg to differ, however, since I fit neighter catagory, I have no way of knowing if I'm right or wrong

I think that they were referring to what constitutes facts, and whether or not certain unproven and unproveable beliefs should be treated as more true than objectively proven facts.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

We can agree on facts like the color of the sky,

I assume that the blind and colour blind would probably beg to differ, however, since I fit neighter catagory, I have no way of knowing if I'm right or wrong

Uh, anyone who denied that the sky is blue only because they were blind or color-blind I would dismiss as crazy. Or at best, trying to pivot the conversation to being about them and their disability. That shit does not get you invited to parties.

Logically they have no personal experience of "sky" or "blue" so they can't confirm it for themselves. If your standard is things being true are that they can be logically proven, then you "know" very little about anything. Is Donald Trump the President? "no, you can't prove Donald Trump is the President".

Actually what you're asserting here is that anything about a statement can be disputed, whether that utterly misses the point or not, or has any bearing on what we should consider true.

[Deacarsia]

There are some interesting questions about reality I would like to ask you guys.

1. Pastor John Andrews handled a venomous snake, believing that he would not be harmed by the venom, was bitten by the snake, refused medical attention because he still believed that he would recover due to divine assistance and died.

Questions:
a. Does Pastor Andrews still exist?
b. If so, where is Pastor Andrews?
c. Was the action of handling a venomous snake beneficial or harmful to him? Why?

2. Mr. Ibrahim Ali joined the Sunni Islamist militant group, al-Nusra Front. He then died due to a bullet from the Syrian Army.

Questions:
a. Does Mr. Ali still exist?
b. If so, where is Mr. Ali?
c. Was Mr. Ali dying in the war against Assad regime beneficial or harmful to himself?

3. Ms. Mary Idahosa had AIDS. She believed that T.B. Joshua was a real Christian prophet, supposedly got healed by him, refused to take medicine and died due to AIDS.

Questions:
a. Does Ms. Idahosa still exist?
b. If so, where is Ms. Idahosa?
c. Was Ms.Idahosa forgoing medical treatment in favor of T.B. Joshua’s miracle healing beneficial or harmful to herself?

Here are some answers to the questions about reality that you asked.

1. Answers:

a. Technically “Pastor” Andrews per se does not exist, since a person is a hylomorphic union of body (matter) and soul (form), but his soul does continue to exist beyond his earthly life. So, technically no, but effectively yes.
b. “Pastor” Andrews’s soul presently is undergoing eternal punishment for his sins, among which was formal heresy against the true faith.
c. The action of handling a venomous snake was harmful to him, as he is now dead and his soul is suffering eternal punishment.

2. Answers:

a. Technically Ibrahim Ali does not exist, but effectively he does.
b. Ibrahim Ali’s soul presently is undergoing eternal punishment for his sins, among which almost certainly was the obstinate denial of the true faith.
c. Dying in a war against the Assad régime was harmful to him, as he is now dead and his soul is suffering eternal punishment.

3. Answers:

a. Does Ms. Idahosa still exist?
b. If so, where is Ms. Idahosa?
c. Was Ms.Idahosa forgoing medical treatment in favor of T.B. Joshua’s miracle healing beneficial or harmful to herself?

a. Technically Mary Idahosa does not exist, but effectively she does.
b. Mary Idahosa’s soul presently is undergoing eternal punishment for her sins, among which was formal heresy against the true faith.
c. Forgoing medical treatment in favor of T. B. Joshua’s “miracle healing” was harmful to her, as she is now dead and her soul is suffering eternal punishment.

[Purpelia]

I assume that the blind and colour blind would probably beg to differ, however, since I fit neighter catagory, I have no way of knowing if I'm right or wrong

Uh, anyone who denied that the sky is blue only because they were blind or color-blind I would dismiss as crazy. Or at best, trying to pivot the conversation to being about them and their disability. That shit does not get you invited to parties.

Logically they have no personal experience of "sky" or "blue" so they can't confirm it for themselves. If your standard is things being true are that they can be logically proven, then you "know" very little about anything. Is Donald Trump the President? "no, you can't prove Donald Trump is the President".

Actually what you're asserting here is that anything about a statement can be disputed, whether that utterly misses the point or not, or has any bearing on what we should consider true.

Not logically proven, scientifically proven. Color is a concept entirely made up by humans to describe a specific band of wavelengths of light as perceived by the human eye. In case of blue this is a wavelength of between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres. So to check if the sky is blue you can at any time stick a measuring device up into the air and check what wave length of light that device collects. Even a person with utterly no concept of sight can still check in a brail or audiobook encyclopedia for the numbers and compare them to the output of your measuring device and thus receive scientific proof that the sky is blue.

There ain't no measuring device for the soul.

What separates science from faith is that science seeks to provide physically measurable conjectures and though them reach answers anyone with the right equipment and instructions can verify. Logic is a tool in this yes, just like mathematics. But ultimately if your theory is based on logic alone than it's not real science.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Uh, anyone who denied that the sky is blue only because they were blind or color-blind I would dismiss as crazy. Or at best, trying to pivot the conversation to being about them and their disability. That shit does not get you invited to parties.

Logically they have no personal experience of "sky" or "blue" so they can't confirm it for themselves. If your standard is things being true are that they can be logically proven, then you "know" very little about anything. Is Donald Trump the President? "no, you can't prove Donald Trump is the President".

Actually what you're asserting here is that anything about a statement can be disputed, whether that utterly misses the point or not, or has any bearing on what we should consider true.

Not logically proven, scientifically proven. Color is a concept entirely made up by humans to describe a specific band of wavelengths of light as perceived by the human eye. In case of blue this is a wavelength of between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres. So to check if the sky is blue you can at any time stick a measuring device up into the air and check what wave length of light that device collects. Even a person with utterly no concept of sight can still check in a brail or audiobook encyclopedia for the numbers and compare them to the output of your measuring device and thus receive scientific proof that the sky is blue.

There ain't no measuring device for the soul.

There will be eventually. You can't measure speed or temperature without a physical object that has those properties. In the case of the soul, the physical object is the brain (and perhaps the whole body) which is too complex to be measured yet. We have located feelings within the brain (using f-MRI) but recording all the activity there is beyond us ... yet.

[Disgraces]

a) Yes.
b) The grave.
c) Harmful. They're dead.

[Purpelia]

There will be eventually. You can't measure speed or temperature without a physical object that has those properties. In the case of the soul, the physical object is the brain (and perhaps the whole body) which is too complex to be measured yet. We have located feelings within the brain (using f-MRI) but recording all the activity there is beyond us ... yet.

Except that when the brain dies all activity in it ends. And yet the definition of the soul requires it to persist after death. So either it gets detached from the body thus necessitating you to demonstrate a way it can be measured separately from the body or it does not persist after death.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There will be eventually. You can't measure speed or temperature without a physical object that has those properties. In the case of the soul, the physical object is the brain (and perhaps the whole body) which is too complex to be measured yet. We have located feelings within the brain (using f-MRI) but recording all the activity there is beyond us ... yet.

Except that when the brain dies all activity in it ends. And yet the definition of the soul requires it to persist after death. So either it gets detached from the body thus necessitating you to demonstrate a way it can be measured separately from the body or it does not persist after death.

I do not believe my own soul persists after death.
I do not believe that I am soul-less, nor that my soul differs in any fundamental way (eg mortal) from other people's souls.
Those people who believe they have a soul AND believe it will persist after death, are indulging in a comforting illusion.

Death is a pretty scary thing. To function at all, knowing that there is always some risk of death, one must exaggerate fearlessness or fear. Under-react or over-react never anything in between. There's no such thing as the 'right' amount of risk to life, so you have to suppress it until you just can't and fear takes over completely.

I forgive those people who think a part of them can never die. I do however think the belief is wrong.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

What do you mean 'still exist'? Do you mean physically alive, spiritually alive, or something else? Because for the first one it's obvious that they're dead. If you meant spiritually alive that's a matter of faith. Since I'm a liberal Christian I can't really say anything for the Mr Ali. Even if I did try to answer for the rest my faith isn't that strong anymore.

The question you ask really depends on how religious the person is.

As for question c, all I can say is that all of them are a bit extreme in their faith, trying to survive through/do life-threatening things without any help. God can work miracles, but it's a matter of when he chooses to do it.

The question of why you would refuse medical help though is a while ' other level

So spiritually alive is the nice way religious Christian people say "not burning in the fiery depths of hell for all eternity," huh.