Why don't people who say that when you die you go to a better place kill themselves? If death is a better place, why are they staying in this "lesser" world? Is it that they are unsure if they are right or not and don't want to risk it? -Dylan (13)

Seeing as you are Philosophers I thought you would be the ones to ask this question. Is there, or has there ever been, any truth to the existence of the Philosopher's Stone?

Can the contradiction between omnipotence and free will be resolved? Does omniscience and omnipotence mean foreknowledge? Does foreknowledge always mean a fixed future? And if these conclusions are yes, does this negate any religion that believes in such a deity?

I have read some books and papers on qualia, as it relates to philosophy of mind (by Chalmers, Block, McGinn, Amy Kind (thanks Amy!) and others) but haven't studied aesthetics at all. It seems to me that qualia is what art is all about. I mean, why do most people stand in line for hours to see the Mona Lisa? Because of what it is like to see that smile! Dickens may indeed say something practical about the ills of society, and this may be an important aspect of art, but what's more important, at least to me, is that it is "like something" to read Dickens. And the "feeling" sticks long after you've read "Bleak House," or looked at the Mona Lisa. What do philosophers have to say about qualia and art?

I believe that death is nothingness, when my conscious mind is dead, nothing else will exist. What are your thoughts on this and are there any writings on this theory?

Assuming that there is no afterlife -- that you lose the ability to think or feel anything once your body dies -- is it irrational to fear death? Asked another way: Was Larkin wrong when he described the philosopher's contention that "no rational being can fear a thing it will not feel" as "specious stuff"?

Is it wrong to eat people?

This might not sound intelligent, figuring that I am 16 years old and I do not have an extensive vocabulary as I would like. But, getting to the question, If we ever find out if there is really a God in some shape or form and that the evolutionary theory or "darwinism" is in fact not true, do you believe that it would be mass destruction and chaos in this world due to the fact that many people's beliefs have gone to waste? -Joseph S.

What do philosophers mean by the term 'mental content'? My initial reaction to the phrase was to take it to mean something like 'the meaning of a thought, belief, etc.' But this interpretation seems...unexplanatory. It seems to me that things don't just MEAN; rather they mean TO some individual/group. (X doesn't just mean Y; X means Y to Z.) For any given thought/belief/whatever (X), we could imagine infinite different Zs, and through these Zs, infinite different Ys. Which Zs are the relevant ones? Why is whatever distinction is drawn between relevant and irrelevant Zs drawn as it is? Or is my vague conception of mental content as the meaning of a thought, belief, etc. not in line with how philosophers use the term? If so...what do they mean by it?

If someone murders many people, is it fair that they die once for their multiple victims?