Stringsinger, I think you and I have, in part, been talking past each other.

You referred in a recent post to "real questions". Note lower case.

I've been referring to "Real Question(s)", as referred to in Logical Positivism.   "Real Questions" in my context is a term of art, not meaning "serious question" or "question which seems important to me" or "question which troubles me considerably" or something like that, but the philosophical questions or problems the answers to which (if any there might be) have no results in the outcome in the real world.

Thus, if the world could be proved to have been created by a god, would one's actual situation be any different than if it were proved not to be? Would one be handsomer, richer, stronger, either way? Would the poor be fed if it were so created, but starve if not? Would ice be heavier than water in one case and lighter than water (as it is) in the other.

If no real-world difference in results flows from such a question, either way, it is not a "Real Question".

Dave Oesterreich