What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread?

130 posts in this topic

Posted (edited) · Report post

Isn't this moreso a case of zero versus null?

Null is preferable to X

0+1 is preferable to 0

ergo 0+1 is preferable to null

Zero and one can be ranked because they have relative value. Null can't be ranked since it's valueless. This is a paradox because people confuse zero with null; zero is a value while null is an absence of value.

I havn't understanded what you said but it's sound like my solution which is:

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. X=eternal bliss y=nothing x<(empty set) -this mean nothing is better than x...

So it is also true that x>y because etenal bliss is better than nothing.

But a slice of bread is better than nothing - z=slice of bread z>y

x>y, z>y, x<(empty set)

this is impossible-z>x>y

and this is the correct answer-x>z>y

so that mean the best thing is eternal bliss after it a slice of bread which isnt better than a eternal bliss but better that nothing.

Can you tell me if that what you mean?

Edited by DummyNoob
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

IMO a piece of bread could be eternal bliss to someone ex. someone who hasn't eaten for days.

To a greedy person nothing is eternal bliss.

(They can never get enough)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

For me, the solution is quite obvious. In first case Nothing = Nothing better than Eternal bliss, i.e. from 0 to eternal bliss. In second case Nothing = 0. How can you compare them?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I think the sheer problem to this is not the predicament itself, but the language used to say it.

If nothing is better than eternal bliss it is not stating that nothing (i.e 0) is better than eternal bliss but that there is no thing (Yes I know it's odd but our language is flawed at times) can be better.

However, in the case bread is better than nothing, nothing is counted as 0 and as nothing (as opposed to the words being broken up).

The final statment saying that bread is better than eternal bliss is of couse one to interpretation also, for the fact that can anyone describe eternal bliss? Or is it another "bad" word in our language? I mean eternal bliss may be totally different for two seperate people, so would you want their version?

Or is eternal bliss a set thing that one person may like and another may not, now of couse that is a differnent subject so I shouldn't be commenting though I belive that the acctual paradox is solved.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

its not a paradox its just different uses of the word nothing.

like someone else said you can have nothing meaning £0 (valued) or nothing meaning to have no possesions

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

There is just missing words in this sentence. "Nothing is better." is what it should say not "Nothing" since both "nothings" in the sentence have different meanings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

nothing is in fact something...it is the state of not having anything....but this paradox is simply discussible by the fact of how this sentence is worded...like someone previously said, if this were in another language, it would not even be a paradox.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

nothing is in fact something...it is the state of not having anything....but this paradox is simply discussible by the fact of how this sentence is worded...like someone previously said, if this were in another language, it would not even be a paradox.

If a slice of bread > eternal bliss

and a sandwich > a slice of bread

and a banquet > a sandwich

and a bucket of money > a banquet

and a million dollars > a bucket of money

and peace of mind > a million dollars

and eternal bliss > a million dollars

then eternal bliss > a slice of bread

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

No, Jiminy they cannot be at the same time. so just pretend you never did that lol. clear the evidence

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Nothing can be many things. It all depents on which one u mean.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Well this oviously isn't really a trick just play on words. Of course nothing is better than eternal bliss and of course simple bread is better than nothing. But (not to insult anybody) only a smart alec would start doing something like this. Of course this is BrainDen's job to make stuff like this but the answer is simply... this is using words against the use of the word nothing as a extremly good to have.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

huh

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

huh

Perhaps, rather than posting something completely unnecessary, you could actually read through the topic, and maybe you won't be so confused. ;)

Have I posted my answer to this? Bliss all the way, assuming I already had things to eat. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Rethinking this, it isn't even a paradox, it is simply a matter of opinion. If you said this to someone who is allergic to bread, would they think that bread is better than nothing?....probably not. They would rather have nothing than hives/allergic reaction.

Another example is someone said Peace of Mind>A Million Dollars. That is just an opinion. To some poor person who already has a peace of mind, they might want that a million dollars.

Again, it is all just opinionated.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread? - Back to the Paradoxes

What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing. But a slice of bread is better than nothing. So slice of bread is more than eternal bliss.

Eternal Bliss = Way better than Nothing

Bread = Better than nothing

Go Figure.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is like something i learned in Geometry. If A<B and B<C then A<C, it has a name but i don't remember it

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This is like something i learned in Geometry. If A<B and B<C then A<C, it has a name but i don't remember it

Transitive relation.

But that is not what is going on here. ;)

Eternal_Bliss < Nothing (Nothing better than Eternal Bliss)

and Nothing < Slice_of_Bread (Slice of Bread better than Nothing)

then Eternal_Bliss < Slice_of_Bread. (Slice of Bread better than Eternal Bliss)

The error is one of Equivocation; the two instances of "Nothing" do not mean exactly the same thing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

The first nothing = any something ever (except eternal bliss)

if you were to use the same definition on the bread, than nothing could be the same as bread or better. just not eternal bliss

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Here are some of my favorite sophisms:

God is love.

Love is blind

Stevie Wonder is blind.

Therefore...

Stevie Wonder is God.

or

Time waits for no man.

No man is an island.

Therefore...

Time waits for an island.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

lol if it wasn't for the "therefor"s or the statement at the beginning of the post i would have thought hugemonkey's post were just something that went off on a wild tangent.

anyway i agree with the previous post that says it's really a matter of opinion.

Edited by No1slight
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

this is nothing more than a play on meaning

nothing is better than eternal bliss, meaning that anything you could compare would not be better

bread better than nothing, meaning that having bread is better than having nothing

so to clarify this

eternal bliss can not be compared, and if all you have is bread, be happy because you could have nothing

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

It comes down to the use of the word "Nothing". Thee first time it is used as "No thing" as in there is not a thing better than eternal bliss, whereas the second time nothing is used more literally, because simple bread is better than nothing.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

In that case, Nothing would be defined as zero constraint, or absolute freedom . But then it means it isn't null or zero, as in both cases is used the same:not INSIDE a mathematical system, or as a logical variable. Therefore it is OUTSIDE, whether as a generator of or alternative extended version of, those systems. It follows it is not to be used as a reference, an ELEMENT of a set, but meaningless in the choice, like infinity:you don't get"closer to it", therefore don't arrange elements by how close to it they get. As the sophism is based on such a report, it belongs to an alternative logical system, and is inconsistent by this one. To "answer" the question means to find this system, otherwise answers are all meaningless

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

This thread is a perfect example of overthinking. When "Nothing is better than eternal bliss" is stated, what is actually meant is "there can be no one object, no feeling, nothing better than having eternal bliss". When "Bread is better than nothing" is stated, what is meant is "having bread is better than having nothing". In a universe where only those two statements are true, bread is technically/essentially equal to eternal bliss.

The way you guys are thinking about it is having both instances of nothing mean the same thing, when they don't (unless you're a smartass).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

My dad was an evanglist. Jesus=bread of life. Bread of life=eternal bliss As referring to not actual food but as food for the spirit. To to be rewarded etenally and the spirit not parrish and the rewards of heaven. Jesus said the bread is my body. Accepting of the spiritual bread = to eternal bliss.

So if you are spiritual: Depending on the bread, bread could mean eternal bliss. So, not taking the bread could be death of the soul.

Non religious view.

Eternal bliss=death

bread=living

We all will experiance death. Bread is a choice and death is not. Death greets us all. (sooner or later) Death is an absolute.

So, on both religous and non religous terms my choice would be the bread.

Edited by PhoenixFromTheFlames
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.