What is better - eternal bliss or a simple bread?

[Guest]

If you choose eternal bliss. That means immortal. What if there is no such thing as immortality? Plus the catch phrase of nothing. I'll eat my bread and wait on my time to come. Be thankful for what I do got. Say you do get what you want. You will still not be happy. You want for something more.

Eternal bliss=wants=nothing

bread=needs=something

[Guest]

This paradox is simply stating a basic math equation

Eternal Bliss < Nothing < Bread

When you simplify the equation you end up with

Eternal Bliss < Bread

[Guest]

I like this version of this question better:

Nothing is better than a cold beer.

A warm beer is better than nothing.

So, a warm beer is better than a cold beer.

[Guest]

better is relative,

and so,

a matter of opinion.

this is no paradox,

and it can be rephrased to:

"which would you prefer? Eternal Bliss? or Bread?"

by rephrasing it, you can remove the word play and there, problem solved.

[Guest]

It is definitely a sophism.

Disproof:

It assigns 2 different meanings to the word "better":

(1) All things of higher value than eternal bliss amount to an empty set.

(2) Simple bread forms a set of higher power than an empty set

Therefore, demagogically, Simple bread is more than eternal bliss.

It compares apples with oranges. First, it compares the elements of 2 sets by value. The second comparison is by power. This cannot establish transitive property.

[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.

Well, I hate to be a party-pooper, but the answer is simple: the logic is incorrect.

What it seems is:

P1. Nothing is better than eternal bliss. (x>y)

P2. A slice of bread is better than nothing. (z>x)

C. A slice of bread is better than eternal bliss. (z>y)

HOWEVER

We find that we have fallen into the logical fallacy of equivocation: "nothing" is used in (actually) two different ways. The first premise, "nothing is better than eternal bliss", "nothing" more literally means "no-thing": no existent "thing" can possibly be better than eternal bliss.

The second premise, "a slice of bread is better than nothing", "nothing" means non-existent, such as nihilo, meaning completely no being. In other words, a slice of bread is better than non-existent things.

I'll rephrase this: the first "nothing" refers to existent things, while the second "nothing" refers to non-existent things.

Therefore, the conclusion is invalid.

[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.

This is a pun on the word nothing. if the equivalent response of there isn't anything is substituted since its the same thing as nothing, then the value could be better understood. It is not that having nothing is better than eternal bliss but that there isn't anything better.

However, another approach which backs this first response of mine would be that though a slice of bread is better than nothing, nothing can be better than eternal bliss. Since it was the first phrase, it takes prevalence over everything.

[Guest]

It seems that this paradox plays more with the words than with the actual meaning?

[Guest]

But that makes you better than "nothing" You'd think you'd hold yourself in higher regard than just being better than nothing.

[Guest]

Well, I haven't read any of the other responses, but here's my take on it:

The fundamental issue lies within the contextual definition of the word "nothing." "Nothing" herein can either mean "nothing" (devoid), or "no thing" (no objects). There are no ideas, concepts, or physical things that are better than eternal bliss. However, a slice of bread is better than a void- an absence of anything whatsoever.

The paradox is initiated when the reader assumes the same definition of "nothing" for both conditions.

Edited March 12, 2011 by saccade

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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).

[Guest]

Perhaps |N| (absolutely nothing) = |B| (absolute bliss)

and 5 more pages of arguments

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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

[Guest]

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!

[Guest]

That's just stupid.

[Guest]

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")

[Auramyna]

Okaaaay, I just realised someone said it in far more intellectual terms. But just take my answer as the Dummies Guide to the eternal bliss vs bread paradox.

[Guest]

Personally I don't like sliced bread.

So...

eternal bliss 100%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

nothing 0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

slice of bread -100%

[Guest]

The mistake in here is we are considering no -thing as a thing and saying bread is better than that thing

[Guest]

This could be very easily illustrated like this:

Eternal Bliss < Nothing < Bread

So,"Nothing" is referred to as something,an item,or whatever,rather than "Nothing" as nothing,empty,none.

[omthkkr]

This can be understood as -

1st statement can be re-written as...nothing is better than eternal bliss...therefore...it can be re-framed as...eternal bliss is better than everything.

2nd statement is - a slice bread is better than nothing.

So the order is now(in ascending order)-

Nothing -> Slice of Bread -> Everything -> Eternal Bliss

So now...no paradox left! B-)

(Maybe i have ignored the missing relation between the slice and bliss)