Recent advances in scientific research claim to create "artificial life". They are only replacing DNA in living cells. I cannot find research that describes what life is, where it comes from, how it permeates inanimate molecules and makes them "live". Putting aside the impossible complexity of living cells required to capture and retain life, where does life come from in the first place? We've discovered dark energy and dark matter as being necessary to maintain the state of the universe, yet we can't detect them. We have no idea what gravity is, but it may originate in alternate dimensions. Is it plausible to consider life to be an energy that exists as dark energy exists? Is it all around us and only manifests itself within the proper matrix? Would it exist even if nothing was "alive" in the universe? What is it?

If everybody in the world thought blue was the best color, would it be a fact that blue is the best color? --Josh, age 11

Is it morally wrong for a person with a serious illness and reduced lifespan to reproduce, knowing that in all likelihood the child will have to experience the loss of a parent in adolescence? Assume that the other parent is healthy and prepared for life as a single parent. Can the reproduction be morally justified on the basis of it being less of a wrong to bring into existence a child who will likely lose a parent early on than for one person to deny the other the opportunity of experiencing parenthood? Obviously we are talking about two different recipients of potential harm here but I am focusing on the idea of a general moral wrong. i.e. which is the greater wrong?

Do I have a moral/filial duty to love and respect one of my parents when they have committed a wrongdoing against the other parent? Do I have a moral right to feel outraged at this parent on behalf of the other parent, when this parent has only ever been a good and loving parent to me?

There is a general consensus that words are merely made up of arbitrary symbols and are thus themselves arbitrary symbols. I agree with the principle of this (the letter 's' is just a squiggly line...). But I have always held that words are "things" and not just symbols or shadows of thoughts. I suppose words simultaneously can be things and symbols just like any other material object--in fact this is partially why I argue that words are things. I can't fully articulate why I feel that words are things, and it seems reductive to merely designate words as the product of a complex system of signs and symbols which we all agree to. Are there any philosophical works (as opposed to linguistic) that examine this subject at length? Thank You.

If God exists, and wants to be known, how is it possible that some open-minded people don't believe in God? In my case, if God existed, I would want to know. Is a theist committed to saying that either I don't really want to know of God's existence, or that God doesn't really want me to know?

Is the death penalty a viable option under the premise that assuming we have apprehended the guilty party, the guilty party, when executed, will never be able to kill again and therefore society has been made that much safer?

We have no evidence whatsoever that the world will not wink out of existence tomorrow, or the day after that, or some other time in the future. Even if it doesn't, we accept that we may all die at any time, even if the chance of it is low for someone young and healthy who doesn't take many risks. Isn't it logical to live each day as if it may be our last? It would not be conducive to the running of a functional society, but nuts to that. One could argue that we must weigh the probability of death or non-existence in the near future and enjoying the present against the probability of it at a much later date and the value of planning and laying the groundwork for things to come. The problem is that it is impossible to compute these probabilities. We can attempt to guess at them, but we are very likely to underestimate the probability of death thanks to the "Black Swan" problem.

I am going under anesthesia in about a month. Once it is administered and I am unconscious, how do I know that the person who wakes up will be me and not a doppelganger with my memories? In other words, how do I know my stream of consciousness will continue after a period of unconsciousness instead of a distinct stream of consciousness starting for the first time?

My question concerns the 20th Century doctrine of "logical postivism" and its apparent refutation. Its distinction between analytic and synthetic statements seems to me straight forward and an important one. Wittgenstein's quote seems appropriate: "On what cannot be spoken of one must remain silent." I understand that logical positivism has been successfully refuted by Quine and others. I cannot grasp that refutation. One of those arguments seems to be the "indeterminacy of translation"); an argument I understand and accept. I also understand that ALL language has different connotations to different people. However, it seems impossible to make an understandable "synthetic" statement about metaphysics. That is, if we cannot verify the existence of something empirically, such as a concept (God, for instance), we cannot come to any agreement about it. In other words what I find valuable about logical positivism, as a materialist, is that metaphysics is simply speculation and cannot be...