Apparently, you can't comprehend what you wrote, so I've bolded the relevant information below. Everything else is a red herring.

A group of people with assorted eye colors live on an island. They are all perfect logicians -- if a conclusion can be logically deduced, they will do it instantly. No one knows the color of their eyes. Every night at midnight, a ferry stops at the island. Any islanders who have figured out the color of their own eyes then leave the island, and the rest stay. Everyone can see everyone else at all times and keeps a count of the number of people they see with each eye color (excluding themselves), but they cannot otherwise communicate. Everyone on the island knows all the rules in this paragraph.

On this island there are 100 blue-eyed people, 100 brown-eyed people, and the Guru (she happens to have green eyes). So any given blue-eyed person can see 100 people with brown eyes and 99 people with blue eyes (and one with green), but that does not tell him his own eye color; as far as he knows the totals could be 101 brown and 99 blue. Or 100 brown, 99 blue, and he could have red eyes.

The Guru is allowed to speak once (let's say at noon), on one day in all their endless years on the island. Standing before the islanders, she says the following:

"I can see someone who has blue eyes."

Who leaves the island, and on what night?

So, if you have blue eyes, you'll only be able to see 99 people with blue eyes, 100 people with brown eyes, and 1 person with green eyes. This means that you must have blue eyes in order for there to be 100 people with blue eyes.

But, if you have brown eyes, you'll only be able to see 99 people with brown eyes, 100 people with blue eyes, and 1 person with green eyes. This means that you must have brown eyes in order for there to be 100 people with brown eyes.

Since everyone on the island is logical, everyone is able to come up with the same conclusion. Therefore, everyone knows what color eyes they have.

The answer to this riddle isn't hard.

99+A=100
A=1

I'll present my answer without searching for the correct answer or before reading any of the comments.

Everyone leaves on the first night because the Guru can see that 100 people with blue eyes and 100 people with brown eyes, making her the only one who has the green eyes. Everyone with blue eyes can only see 99 people with blue eyes. So, through logical deduction, that person must have blue eyes since there are only 100 people in total with blue eyes, that person must conclude that he/she is the 100th person with blue eyes. This same logic goes the same for the people with brown eyes. That's how everyone can leave the island on the first night.

I have to say evolution is accepted as a scientific fact, but that does not mean that there is Divine intervention is not involved during the processes of evolution. That is true because physics is precise, but it is not exactly precise! Evolution is an imprecise discipline. So, there may be a slight change in the matter beyond the precision of physics. Consider that as fine-tuning Divine's intervention, which is necessary for the emergence of life. So, we cannot make a solid argument against Divine intervention when it comes to the philosophy of science!

First of all, The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the emergence of life, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. Second, there's no need to try and come up with an argument against divine intervention when there's no sound argument and/or evidence for divine intervention. We should accept a hypothesis as a theory only when there is sufficient evidence to support it. Lastly, if we don't currently know something, in regards to physics, then our conclusion should be, "we don't know." It's not, "we don't know, therefore, it's divine intervention." That's the philosophy of science.

BTW,
Not accepting a hypothesis does not necessarily mean that you accept it as being false/wrong.

Maybe because we can learn by doing rather than relying on something to constantly correct our mistakes (which is laziness)

We can learn to use something/someone that corrects our mistakes rather than not caring (which is laziness) and/or relying on our own belief that we are correct (which is ignorance). You are mistaking intelligence for laziness. Hopefully, you learned the distinction between the two after making your mistake. :wink:

Apologies for the bad grammar. Must proofread more carefully.

AI is proficient at doing that, why didn't you used AI to do it?

The 1992 Gallup poll estimated that 5% of Americans had experienced NDEs, suggesting 13-15 million cases in the United States alone. A 2024 Scientific American review, citing studies like Kondziella et al. (2019) across 35 countries, estimates 5-10% global prevalence in the general population, representing potentially 400-800 million cases worldwide amid a 2025 world population of approximately 8.1 billion.

Nobody here that disagrees with you, are dismissing the notion that people have had NDE. There's plenty of evidence that supports it. However, we ARE dismissing your conclusion in regards to NDE because you have no evidence that supports your conclusion. You're using irrelevant data and claim that it's evidence for your conclusion regarding NDE. This is neither philosophy nor science.

I'm genuinely curious, have you ever had an experience of a hallucination caused by the consumption of hallucinogenic drugs before?

We use dreams to escape reality cause it defines logic, and forget it's the source of creativity and innovation.

Logic builds walls, Dreams restructure them.
Our future belongs to those who dare to imagine.

No, ignorance build walls, logic opens up doors.

I'll use what you said above as an example. Logic, sees that it's a false dichotomy and open doors seeking creativity and innovation in both reality and dreams. Ignorance build walls between reality and dreams, separating the two, preventing imagination from becoming reality.

Those who are afraid to imagine, remains stuck in the past. The ignorant who dared to imagined, is presently lost in their imagination. Those who are logical and dares to imagine continues moving forward into the future.

Imagination using logic = science

Imagination without logic = pseudoscience

That is a very good question! If Heaven is the final destination for those who repent, and if these individuals are free, then they could commit sins in Heaven as well!

Or, if free will exist in heaven and evil doesn't exist, then it's possible that God could create a world where no evil exists and free will also exist. That means that God chose to create a world where evil exist.

God allowing human evil is necessary in order for us to have free will; and we need that to choose Him. This does allow, then, for humans to commit atrocities against each other. — Bob Ross

Is there free will in heaven?

I have a problem with the term 'systemic racism', or at least, how the term is used. So no, I don't think we have 'systemic racism' in Canada or the US, because that implies someone has built this system, on racist principles, when I think the primary 'systemic' power issue is social class.

Racism? Real and dreadful. Systemic racism? maybe not a thing? I don't see it here in Canada, anyway.

What do you think 'systemic racism' means?

I don't know, could the reason for why it's irrelevant is because the "god" in your argument has nothing to do with the Christianity and its god? :chin:

Another red herring. Bible verses is irrelevant to what I pointed out about your argument. So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring.

You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.

God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.

Actually, you were the who demonstrated that you don't understand by arguing that you can prove that God exists by typing "g" "o" "d".

That's a red herring. I'm referring to your definition, not someone's else's definition. You're arguing that God is the word God and not the word God, which is a contradiction. The evidence of this is by your demonstration, differentiating between "God" and "the word God." So, how about you defend your argument instead of presenting a red herring.

Which is a contradiction.

So, you just confirmed that you only proved the word "god" and not God itself.

One is the actual word and one is not.

For your information, "brick" was a figure of speech called simile in my sentence.

Simile is
"a figure of speech involving the comparison of one thing with another thing of a different kind, used to make a description more emphatic or vivid (e.g. as brave as a lion )." - Oxford Dictionary.

And yet, you didn't understand that, "the bricks that make up the sentences are not the actual words themselves," was a figure of speech :chin:

They are. If they are not, I wouldn't have understood you. I did understand what you typed, so they are as real as bricks.

You didn't prove that the word exists. All you did was proved that the representation of the word exists.

Every time words are spoken, written or typed out, they are real as bricks. Bricks that make up the sentences, which are propositions, statements or claims in the real world.For instance, God is great, or Oh my God, you took my money, but didn't let me win the lottery jackpot. Don't worry, God will save you. etc etc. These are the real life examples of solid manifestation and materialization and utilization of the words.

So you agree with me, the bricks that make up the sentences are not the actual words themselves. :up:

It depends on what the definition of God is.  If it were like me, my definition of God is, a word in English which spells GOD, and has many meanings and many types depending on what religion or concept it comes from. Hence it is quite straightforward to prove the existence of God under the definition.

Whenever I type G O D, a word God appears on the screen GOD.  Here is a God. Here is another God.

You are seeing two Gods on the screen.  An object can be said to exist when it is visible to the perceiver in space and time.  I am seeing the word God in the space where the monitor is located at this particular moment.

Therefore it is conclusively true that God exists.

If your definition of God is different from mine, you would have a different method of proof. Whatever the case, your mileage may vary.

You didn't prove that the word exists. All you did was proved that the representation of the word exists.

There are three possibilities concerning the belief in God: true, false, indeterminate. Religion believes it is true. Atheism believes that it is false. Agnosticism is indeterminate.

Due to your ignorance, you're comparing apples, red delicious, and red apples and using their differences as a method of determining whether a fruit is an apple or not an apple.

Atheism is defined as a positive claim. It is agnosticism that refuses to make a claim. While agnosticism makes perfect sense, atheism doesn't.

What you said above, ⬆️ is wrong. You don't have to take my word for it, your words below says it all. ⬇️

If we look at the JTB account for knowledge, then knowledge is defined as a particular kind of belief:
 

With all that being said, because agnosticism specifically deals with knowledge, we must utilize the label properly, placing it in the appropriate category. This makes agnosticism a particular kind of atheism and theism.

I didn't combine anything at all. I just chose words to make up sentences. Anyway, it is not the same thing as seeing the images in your dreams.

I'm sorry, I'll correct what I said.

You CHOSE words and COMBINED them together to make sentences.

Happy?

We’re speaking about the medical procedure some people choose to terminate a viable pregnancy. You’re equating this with the natural and spontaneous death of a fetus.

No, we're talking about the medical term, "abortion." They're both abortion. You're just separating the two to appeal to emotion.

Night - hi. Why did you say "organism"?

Just going by the definition used by

 note that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism

The question is whether a miscarriage is the end of the short life of a person, or not. Why jump to asking for blame and “wrongness” without addressing the moving pieces of the argument.

A miscarriage is by definition, an abortion. Therefore, according to

that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism,

a miscarriage(abortion), is the act of killing the organism, which is wrong.

Why is absolute morality only absolute sometimes and relative some other times?

Show me any definition that states otherwise.

Show me where I stated it isn't. Also, show me a person who has eaten all types of meat and/or wants to eat all types of meat.

Miscarriages are not the intentional killing of a human life, so no.

Miscarriages are abortions. Therefore, according to your definition, "that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism," Miscarriages are the acts of killing those organisms.

Combining image 1 and 2? doesn't make sense to me. How do you combine images? Combine something means mixing something. To mix something you must add 1 substance to the other substance, which is only possible with liquid or powder stuff.

You just proved that you're wrong. You combined letters above, resulting in sentences. :up:

If you put down image 1 to image 2, then image 2 will be invisible blocked by the image1. What is going on here?

How does image 1 and 2 make image 2 invisible ? What is going on here? :chin:

You were talking about the images, but suddenly now you are talking a person called someone?

You were talking about images of people, but suddenly now you are talking about a person called someone? :chin:

I don't. Do you? Why do you want to come up with a new image?

I do. Why don't you want to come up with a new image? :chin:

My one objection is that meat is flesh-as-food, flesh that we eat. I think we're in trouble when we start viewing other members of our species as food. But otherwise I fully agree.

Not everyone consider meat as food, nor does everyone who eat meat as food consider every kind of meat as food.

note that the act of abortion itself, the act of killing this organism, is rarely mentioned in these discussions from an abortionist standpoint.

Did the mother kill all the zygotes/embryos/fetuses that were miscarriage? Was the mother wrong for having miscarriages since, by your definition, it's the act of killing all those organisms?

Can different images be amalgamated into totally different another image?
- That's basically what amalgamate means. Combining image 1 with image 2 results in an image that is neither image 1 or 2. So, the answer is obviously, yes.

Who do you get if you amalgamate images of Elon Musk with Bill Gates, Taylor Swift and Madonna?
- Someone who isn't Elon Musk with Bill Gates, Taylor Swift or Madonna

Why would you do that?
- To come up with a new image.

Interesting point. But if the images in dreams are from the memories, why some folks see images that they have never come across in their lives, or meet people they cannot recognise and never met, or go to the places they have never been in their whole lives before?

One explanation for this is that the whole image in a dream is not an exact image from memory. That image could be amalgamation of several images. For example, you subconsciously take different parts of a face from several people that you know and blend it all up, resulting with a new face that you've never seen before.

No. It depends on your standpoint on the status of a fetus. We are only charged with murder if we kill a human being. If a fetus is a human being, then it's murder.

What you said above contradicts what you've said earlier.

I think consistency is important.

In the USA, we are not only charged for murder if kill a human being. Besides the degrees of murder, someone can also be charged with manslaughter, criminally accidental homicide, or not be charged at all. Someone can kill a human being, themselves, and not get charged with murder. Someone can kill a human being in self-defense and not get charged with murder. Someone can medically kill a human being, "pulling the plug," and not get charged for murder. Someone can kill a human being by accident, accidental homicide, and not get charged for murder.

So, regardless of whether or not some considers a fetus as a human being, causing the death of a fetus isn't necessarily murder.

This demonstrates that rationality is not contingent on being correct or knowing the truth.

That's certainly true. But the reasoning you outline starts from "If someone has fired a gun, I might get shot, so I should hide", and then considers a range of possibilities around that. That's the starting-point. Factoring in my beliefs and knowledge amounts to factoring those possibilities in. It's still about the facts.

That still doesn't show that rationality is contingent on being correct or knowing the truth.

What do you mean? How did the marbles get into the jar? Isn't putting marbles into a jar an act of organizing them?

I'm not talking about the act of putting marbles into a jar. I'm talking about the marbles are stacked up in an organized way. There's no organizer that stacked up the marbles on top of each other so that they'll stacked up in an organized manner.

And to answer your question, the marbles could have just rolled into the jar from a table that suddenly became uneven.

I must argue against that statement. Knowing truth is essential because things go very wrong when people act on incorrect ideas and bad information. Primitive people knew that problem well. They did not have bank cards to repair all the damage of bad decisions. And democracy, like scientific research, is people working together to get things right. True Aristotle made mistakes, and Greek logic defined by him was lacking. But the truth is, if we don't get things right, they can go very wrong. This is true in our private lives and public lives.

I disagree. Things don't always go wrong every time that people act on incorrect ideas and/or not knowing the truth. Running away or hiding because someone thinks that there is a dangerous threat present whether or not there's actual danger, can save that person's life.

Example:
You hear a couple loud noises and assumed that they're gunshots, so you hide.
1. No actual gunshots: Not knowing the truth that those sounds were actual gunshots and hiding, doesn’t result in anything bad happening. - Rational

2. Actual gunshots: Not knowing the truth that those sounds were actual gunshots and hiding, can have a good outcome, not getting shot. - Rational

3. Actual gunshots: Not knowing the truth that those sounds were actual gunshots and not hiding, just remaining as you were, can result with you getting shot. - Irrational


This demonstrate that rationality is not contingent on being correct or knowing the truth.

The argument from Aristotle is that a body is an organized existence, and an agent is required for any type of organization, as the organizer. Therefore the agent as organizer, is prior in time to the existence of the body. Of course abiogenesis is the basis for a denial of the secondary premise, but as the op points out, it's not a justified denial.

That's false, not all types of organization requires an organizer. Here's an example:

Evenly sized marbles inside a jar are organizedly stacked on top of each other, but there is/was no organizer that stacked up those marbles on top of each other.

Is it rational to believe illnesses are caused by the gods? Is it rational to believe a god created man from mud?

Being correct or knowing the truth is not required for rationalization. Back in ancient times, a person who conclude that the sun goes around the earth by using their observations, is being rational.

Sound premise + valid argument = sound conclusion.

-

That's wrong. That's not how "sound" is used in a logical argument. This is how it's correctly used:

True premise + Valid argument = Sound argument

Here's the simple reason why you're not understanding all of this. You are refusing to acknowledge what the hypothesis is proposing. Take note of what's being emphasized there because it's important. It doesn't mean, "to accept the hypothesis as being true." So, instead of looking at our reality as a simulation, as the hypothesis proposed, you're looking at a simulation within our reality.