What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread?

[rookie1ja]

This is not a paradox. It's comparing a noun to a quantity. It is like saying "What is better, a a tree or zero." It's a play on words, but it's not a paradox. Another way of looking at it is this: "Everything is worse than eternal bliss, and a piece of bread is not better than everything."

it's listed under "My favorite sophisms" ... the paradoxes page was the closest one to place it on

[Guest]

Vewy punny.

[Guest]

Nice play on words.

It should be:

There is nothing better than eternal bliss.

and

Bread is better than nothingness.

Paradox solved.

[Guest]

This one is interesting, but my thought is that the two "nothings" involved in the riddle are two independent "nothings", and thus can not be taken as equals. If you take away the assumption that the two "nothings" are equal, you are left with a ridiculous sounding attempt at the transitive property...

bread is better than "not having any food"

"No state of being" is better than eternal bliss

Therefore "Not having any food" is better than "No state of being".

[Guest]

Nothing is better than eternal bliss.

bread is better than nothing.

Break it down.

No thing is better than eternal bliss

bread is a thing.

so bread can't be better than eternal bliss.

[Guest]

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

The only tricky thing here is the wording. If you said:

Eternal bliss is better than nothing. A slice of bread is better than nothing. So one of the two is better than the other but both are preferable to having nothing.

But in this case, as has already been said using math, so I won't bore you with that again, Saying nothing is better than eternal bliss is saying that there isn't anything better. I am going to make this even more interesting, for living things nothing is death. Death is the only thing better than bliss even though if you think about it they are the same in the true state of bliss, except bliss is impossible because come on Murphy's Law people.

Saying the bread is better than nothing means it is better than not having eternal bliss. Nothing in that case meaning possesion of something (or nothing). So in a way its saying if you can't get eternal bliss, you might as well eat some bread to pass the time =).

Just some weird language, my ideas, whatever things.

Btw you guys are lucky I didn't get more in depth. I could write dozens of pages before getting bored. Good day, I hope you get over that headache I gave you, j/k

[Guest]

Something is better than eternal bliss.

Bread is better than something.

therefore: Bread is better than eternal bliss.

[Guest]

What is better than eternal bliss...? This is just anoying. Saying that "nothing" is better emplies that "nothing" is something. But we all know that "nothing" is in fact just that... nothing. It has no value. Therefor eternal bilss is better.

[Guest]

This is more of a pun than a paradox. The word “nothing” has more than one conceptual meaning. “There is nothing better than eternal bliss.” Rephrased; “There is no state greater than the state of eternal bliss”. “Bread is better than nothing.” Rephrased; “The state of bread is better than no state at all.” The two definitions of “nothing” involved are 1. “No existing or none existing thing” 2. “That which does not exist.” Words do not exist in a vacuum very well in the English language and rely heavily on context to give meaning. Answer: by the two sentences given, eternal bliss is better than bread.

[rookie1ja]

This is more of a pun than a paradox.

actually, it is listed as a sophism

[Guest]

Christ said, "My bread is to do the will of GOD".

therefore bread=Will of GOD

Doing the will of GOD=Eternal Bliss

therefore bread=eternal bliss

enjoy a bite of that

Peace.

[Guest]

I don't think this qualifies as a paradox. "Nothing" has two different meanings here.

Consider:

{Eternal Bliss} < {} (Empty set)

{0} > {Bread}

As neither of the initial posits relate explicitly, there's no direct comparison... At most, we can speculate that:

{0} < {Bread} =< {Eternal Bliss}

[Guest]

it depends if you like to spread bliss on your bread

[Guest]

"What is better: eternal bliss or a simple bread?

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

I hate it when such things like this are listed as "sophisms"... The question asks which is better, not what is better than what. Eternal bliss is better than a piece of bread. It's as simple as that. It doesn't ask if anything is better than eternal bliss; it asks if eternal bliss is better than bread (or if bread is better than bliss--and thus, if nothing is better than eternal bliss, then eternal bliss is better than bread).

Christ said, "My bread is to do the will of GOD".

therefore bread=Will of GOD

Doing the will of GOD=Eternal Bliss

therefore bread=eternal bliss

enjoy a bite of that

Peace.

And to hipowertech:

Bread would thus equal "to do the will of GOD", an action, not "the will of GOD", a noun. Also, doing the will of GOD is not eternal bliss to some people. Besides, "eternal bliss" would be much more freedom than having to even deal with any such divine being; more freedom and free thinking... Let's just say that there is no such thing as eternal bliss and bypass this matter. <!-- s:roll: --><!-- s:roll: -->

And thus end my thoughts on this "sophism." Sorry if I offended anyone. ;;;

[Guest]

Not truly a paradox, as "nothing" is double-defined.

In saying "nothing" is better than eternal bliss, "nothing" equals the empty set - there are no elements in the set that is greater than nothing.

Saying bread is better than nothing, the metaphor is of human hunger. Here, "nothing" contains the human animal state of "hungry".

The two sets of "nothing" are not compared equally. A paradox requires that two sets are identical and contain competing elements.

[rookie1ja]

Not truly a paradox, as "nothing" is double-defined.

In saying "nothing" is better than eternal bliss, "nothing" equals the empty set - there are no elements in the set that is greater than nothing.

Saying bread is better than nothing, the metaphor is of human hunger. Here, "nothing" contains the human animal state of "hungry".

The two sets of "nothing" are not compared equally. A paradox requires that two sets are identical and contain competing elements.

as I mentioned a few lines above - it is listed as a sophism

if you have a great paradox, you can send me an e-mail and I can add it to my page

[Guest]

I think "nothing" is a very general word and from the english language atleast it is hard to put it into one certain term. I think there is some way to change up the wording so that it is possible

[Guest]

What is better-eternal bliss not eternal bread. Play of words there. No doubt eternal bliss.

[Guest]

Define the following:

-Eternal Bliss

-Nothing

-condition of bread

But if it were not moldy cheese bread, then that would be the best by far.

[Guest]

it all depends on the persons opinion.

[Guest]

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.

from my point of understanding What is better than eternal bliss? Nothing.

means that eternal bliss is ranked #1. the "nothing" there says that all things are second to eternal bliss

while

slice of bread is better than nothing means that the bread is a better choice than not getting anything. the "nothing" on that statement means simply zero..

so as a conclusion... the "nothing" on the first statement is different from the "nothing" on the second statement.

[Guest]

this ones a play on words too because nothing can be better than the best but nothing can also be worse than the worst

[Guest]

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.

(I) First, anyone can write anything and say it is true, whether it is valid or not. Just because someone can write the statements: 0 > 1, or solve for x in x/0, or even "I think, therefore I do not exist", it doesn't necessarily mean they are true or even valid in the first place.

(II) Most arguments made here seem to point out that the statements and/or questions given are faulty or invalid in some way, hence nullifying them. They conclude that if the questions are invalid, there's no need to answer them. This is probably the safest and the easiest way out of the this mess.

(III) If the validity of the statements and question is not in debate and we are asked to assume they're true above all, then we must also agree on the definition of the terms used. Does nothing = 0? Does nothing = non-existence? Does "better" also mean "greater than"? etc.

With that in mind (assumption of validity and truth and agreement to the definition of terms), we are given two facts, or truths:

0 > e (nothing is better than eternal bliss)

b > 0 (bread is better than nothing)

Which when written as one statement, b > 0 > e, clearly shows that:

b > e (bread is better than eternal bliss) is also true.

But what does it all mean then?!

Simple: It is better to exist as a slice of bread, or not exist at all, than it is to exist in eternal bliss.

I mean, if this so-called "eternal bliss" is less than zero, what good is it then?

But eternal bliss is supposed to be a good thing, by definition! Isn't this a given and well understood property of bliss?

Yes, it is. And since this wouldn't make sense if the givens are valid and true, it begs the question:

Is this a clue, a hint, that maybe eternal bliss doesn't really exist to begin with?!!

..maybe you shouldn't believe the hype!!!

[Guest]

The issue here is one of logic, and in this case, the logic is fundamentally flawed. To say that nothing is better than Eternal Bliss may or may not be correct. I cannot say because I have yet to experience any such thing as Eternal Bliss. And as there remains a multitude of other things that I have likewise not experienced, to which all other things would have to be compared (according to some as yet undefined criteria that everyone must somehoe agree upon), I can only presume that Eternal Bliss would indeed be better than anything else. That said, I shall presume that this is the case, and that "nothing" is better than Eternal Bliss, which is to say that there is no (known) thing which is better than Eternal Bliss. Next, I will likewise presume that a slice of bread is better than nothing. It is at this point that the "puzzle" makes an invalid presumption—namely that "nothing" is "something." This is clearly not true. "Nothing" is precisely what it professes to be—it is nothing. The statement, as it is written is intended to convey the idea that there is not any thing (i.e. no thing, or "nothing") that is better than Eternal Bliss, and that to have a slice of bread is better than to have no thing(s) at all. The problem lies in the flaws in the English language, whereby the word nothing, which is intended to signify an undefined, abstract concept, is taken to refer to some specific thing, which it does not. This is then followed by yet another invalid assumption, when the "paradox" leaps to the conclusion that if thing (A) is better than thing (B.), then thing © must also be better than thing (B.). The conclusion that the "paradox" reaches presumes that in order for a slice of bread to be better than nothing, it must also be better than Eternal Bliss, since nothing is better than Eternal Bliss. It states that "Therefore, a slice of bread is better than Eternal Bliss..." But, this conclusion disregards the original assertion that a slice of bread is better than nothing. Based on this original assertion, in order for the conclusion to be true, Eternal bliss would have to be the same as nothing, which it is not. There is no paradox here, there is only flawed logic.

[Guest]

This is no paradox. You can't quantify "better".