125 replies to this topic

[3lizab3th]

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.

[missepicfail]

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).

[Q-Cumber]

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

[Nikhil121]

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.

[kevinwu1997]

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

[ThosNord]

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!

[storygirl101]

That's just stupid.

[storygirl101]

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

[Molly Mae]

Gosh, that's smart

Simply put, it's the fallacy of equivocation.

[Auramyna]

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")