John Cuthber

Optional Dilbert cartoon. http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2001-10-25/

If the problem is that the people are uneducated then there is a solution: educate them. I'm not sure that's the only issue.

Quite possibly. It's difficult to change people's behaviour. Also, where are the burger joints and where are the vegie cafes? Where do the people live? Are you going to set up a bus service?

This looks a lot like the unexpected hanging to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox All the people on the island can see some people with blue eyes. The traveller doesn't add to that. What would happen if someone (on the island) dreamed that the traveller turned up and said the bit about "I can see someone with blue eyes". The dreamer would know that it was possible for a traveller to do so. After all, any traveller who got that would see people with blue eyes and anyone on the island would know that the traveller would see people with blue eyes. Since they are perfectly logical they would deduce that a traveller might turn up and say that. So they would be able to deduce the same logical string, even without having the traveller arrive and commit suicide. (Followed by the rest of the group) But there's a problem. What happens if they dream that the traveller says "I can see someone with brown eyes". In that case the brown eyed people have to kill themselves first. But both groups can't die first. So there's a flaw in the logic. I don't know for certain what it is, but there must be one.

Six pages of argument tells me that the answer to the question in the title is "No".

I have a similar reaction to the signs on emergency exits that say "This door is alarmed". I'm always tempted to write "Well calm it down then" under it.

Pretend it's the "latest puzzle game from Japan" and give it to someone who likes sudoku and kakuro.

" Why not put a big tax on junk food, and use it to subsidize fruits, veges, and other quality nutritional food? Then poor people will better afford healthier food, and can't afford junk food." Given the people who eat on burger bars and the people who eat in vegetarian restaurants, I take it that your plan is to tax poor people to subsidize food for rich people. And, since the biggest predictor of being unhealthy is being poor, you plan to do it again. "Also there should be a tax break for being very healthy, and not needing expensive health care. " A classic case of blaming the victim if ever I saw one.

I know that, but I can't resist a joke about paradoxes (apart from the obvious one) .

I think the spelling in the title is remarkable. except, if it were, then it wouldn't be. Oh damn! another paradox.

From time to time I have a problem with this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Periodic_acid

From Wiki. The United States Food and Drug Administration,[2] World Health Organization,[3] International College of Nutrition,[4] the United States Department of Health and Human Services,[5] American Dietetic Association,[6] American Heart Association,[7] British National Health Service,[8] and Dietitians of Canada[6] recommend against the consumption of significant amounts of coconut oil due to its high levels of saturated fat. (Which is a pity, because I really like coconut)

Except that's not really true because the sum of the series is plainly finite- but the logical problem with God's omnipotence is real.

One of God's defining characteristics, according to the Bible, is omnipotence. The problem with this is that omnipotence can't exist.* Therefore the God of the Bible does not exist. *It's the old problem of God setting Himself a goal He can't reach. If He can't set it He's not omnipotent, If He can't reach it He's not omnipotent. Either way He fails at something.

I'm fairly sure that a proof always exists for the rationality of any rational number. If it is rational number then it can be expressed as a ratio of two numbers a and b where a and b are integers. So, for any rational number the proof is simple. Find a and b. It may not be practical since it may take an (almost) infinite time.

I think this says a lot about how he is perceived. http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2012/01/27

There are at least 3 major religions. If you accept the God of one of them it's still odds on that you picked the wrong one and so you are going to hell anyway. Since you are statistically doomed to hell you might as well have a good time while you are here.

Or he doesn't exist or just a figment of your imagination.

That would be proof of the lack of a beneficent God.

It would be cruel to knowingly create a dog with those characteristics.

"No, we need to agree on the definition of Moral perfection" Whatever we need to do, we can't do it by starting off by assuming there is a God.

Re "This conclusion is false, moral perfection means to know one's own true nature i.e to become identical to a morally perfect God." see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question Re. "God has the desire to induce a desire in individuals making them to seek him" In my case (and it seems plenty of other people too) He has failed.

"So with assay i can quantify lipid of large number of samples within short span of time." But it gives the wrong answer. If you are happy with the wrong answer why not just make up the result? That's even quicker and easier.

how easy is it to get and hydrolyse mtbe? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_tert-butyl_ether

Incidenatlly,this quote Erwin Schrödinger - The sensation of colour cannot be accounted for by the physicist's objective picture of light-waves. Could the physiologist account for it, if he had fuller knowledge than he has of the processes in the retina and the nervous processes set up by them in the optical nerve bundles and in the brain? I do not think so. He continues on to remark that subjective experiences do not form a one-to-one correspondence with stimuli. For example, light of wavelength in the neighborhood of 590 nm produces the sensation of yellow, whereas exactly the same sensation is produced by mixing red light, with wavelength 760 nm, with green light, at 535 nm. From this he concludes that there is no "numerical connection with these physical, objective characteristics of the waves" and the sensations they produce. rather illustrates my point. At that time (about 1920) even a great scientist like Schrödinger couldn't figure out the relation between the properties of light and the perceived colour. Now we can: if you give me the spectrum and circumstances, I can tell you what colour it will be seen as. Because we didn't choose to say "we don't know, it must be un knowable, we will give up; but rather we said "we don't know so we will keep looking because we assume that we can know- if we take the time to study it", we now understand it.