Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

Photo
- - - - -

What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread?


  • Please log in to reply
129 replies to this topic

#111 3lizab3th

3lizab3th

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 94 posts

Posted 17 March 2011 - 03:42 PM

I know the logic is flawed (there's eleven pages of reasons why), but I find the idea too fantastically fun to just accept its fallacy. I'm gonna argue that it's a rock paper scissors scenario..

nothing beats bliss
bread beats nothing
bliss beats bread

...
It's TOTALLY flawed, but it created the opportunity to figure out hand signs for bread,nothing and bliss, so I'll stand by it.
  • 0

#112 missepicfail

missepicfail

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 12 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:31 PM

There are three ways to look at this but before we can get there we need to understand eternal bliss.

What is "Eternal Bliss"?
eternal: without beginning or end, lasting forever (dictionary.com)
bliss: supreme happiness, utter joy or contentment (dictionary.com)

1. So we can say that bread is in fact better than eternal bliss because in our most basic nature we require food to survive. how can we have eternal bliss if we do not have the means to stay alive and enjoy it?

2. Or we can say that bread isn't better than eternal bliss due to the fact that eternal bliss would last forever whereas bread is only temporary due to spoiling or eating.

3. But if you really think about it, we should be treating the bread and eternal bliss as equals. bread may not last long but it sustains us while we have it and if we feel sustained then we are content. if we continue to be sustained then we continue to have bliss. the two go hand in hand. eternal bliss cannot exist without the bread, and the bread cannot exist without the want of eternal bliss (the more bread we have the longer we are blissful essentially which could easily lead to "eternal" bliss).
  • 0

#113 Q-Cumber

Q-Cumber

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 421 posts

Posted 16 April 2011 - 11:53 PM

Perhaps |N| (absolutely nothing) = |B| (absolute bliss)
:P and 5 more pages of arguments
  • 0

#114 Nikhil121

Nikhil121

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 05 June 2011 - 08:35 AM

Eternal bliss is never possible, if u somehow get to it, u'll already have spent some of ur life in virtual hell!
So something's better than nothing.
  • 0

#115 kevinwu1997

kevinwu1997

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 17 July 2011 - 05:46 AM

Let's call eternal bliss x, and bread y.
eternal bliss is the best, therefore x=infinity
bread is just... bread, so y=1
nothing is better than eternal bliss, therefore, ?>x
bread is better than nothing, so y>0
then, they say that because bread is better than nothing, and nothing is better than eternal bliss, y>x
this is not true because they are assuming that ?=0, which it doesn't
  • 0

#116 ThosNord

ThosNord

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 29 August 2011 - 09:28 PM

This a purely semantic problem, not a logical one. The seeming paradox revolves around the use of the concept 'nothing' in two quite different senses of the word, or rather: two quite different concepts. both of which might be referred to as 'nothing'.
The first nothing means 'absolutely anything imaginable'. This is the 'nothing' that is eternal bliss, if such a thing existed, would arguably be 'better than'. But a slice of bread is certainly not better than nothing in the sense of 'absolutely anything imagainable', now is it?
The other 'nothing' means 'not anything at all' and this is the nothing that having a slice of bread is better than. But having a slice of bread is hardly better than having 'absolutely anything imaginable', now is it? Watch the way you use words!
  • 0

#117 storygirl101

storygirl101

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:34 AM

That's just stupid.
  • 0

#118 storygirl101

storygirl101

    Junior Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts

Posted 10 October 2011 - 07:34 AM

Let's call eternal bliss x, and bread y.
eternal bliss is the best, therefore x=infinity
bread is just... bread, so y=1
nothing is better than eternal bliss, therefore, Ø>x
bread is better than nothing, so y>0
then, they say that because bread is better than nothing, and nothing is better than eternal bliss, y>x
this is not true because they are assuming that Ø=0, which it doesn't


Gosh, that's smart
  • 0

#119 Molly Mae

Molly Mae

    Moderator

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3188 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:La Salle, Illinois, USA

Posted 13 October 2011 - 08:29 PM


Gosh, that's smart

Simply put, it's the fallacy of equivocation.
  • 0

A recipe for honey-pickled apples


Awards:

Bonanova Gold Star

Spoiler for Molly's Rules to Live By

#120 Auramyna

Auramyna

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 429 posts
  • Gender:Female

Posted 18 October 2011 - 11:09 AM

I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if this has been said. The two instances of the word "nothing" are referring to different definitions.
One is nothing = thin air
and the other is nothing = no thing in existence.

So, it is not saying "there is no thing in existence that bread is not better than", it is saying: "If all you have is nothing, it is better to have some bread" (extension of that is: in any other case, screw bread, I'm getting pizza.)

You can't define things in two different ways, and then try to amalgamate it into one logical argument cos it quickly becomes a logical fallacy (shades of "Klue""Master")
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users