Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Section 8 · Oct 12, 2003, 11:50 pm

God exists.
None of the words in this pair are true.

I'm debating what is called the liars paradox.
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm

"If (1) is true, then (1) is false. On the other hand, if (1) is false, then it is true to say (1) is false; but, because the Liar Sentence is saying precisely that (namely that it is false), (1) is true. So (1) is true if and only if it is false. Since (1) is one or the other, it is both."

Well, there's the proof.

RebelWithanAK · Oct 13, 2003, 01:00 am

Actually, You're wrong, because (1) the first phrase "God Exists" has nothing to do with the second, and (2) even if it were, that's like saying "The sky is green; but this sentence is false, anyway." It proves nothing. After all, it's a paradox.

Fallen Angel · Oct 13, 2003, 02:47 am

Your trying to baffle us again with bullshit Section 8.

Section 8 · Oct 13, 2003, 11:04 am

FA, I'm trying to debate Tarxis semantic theory, and the liars paradox. The pair that I used was used by Buridan in the late mideval period. If you think it's bullshit say why, or else it doesn't offer much to debate.

**Sean** · Oct 13, 2003, 02:49 pm

fallen, there are going to be tons of different views here. Nobody is tryning to baffle "us" because there is no us. It's called debate. If you don't agree, say why, and read some of the article of course.

Downwiththestereotype · Oct 14, 2003, 05:56 am

Its is simply a play on words. Its the nature of our language that allows this parradox to come about, not the existance or non-existance of god.

**Pooeypants** · Oct 15, 2003, 12:09 pm

Almost as ridiculous as the ontological argument.

Oct 15, 2003, 02:25 pm

None of the sentences in this pair.

Makes a little more sense.

blockhead

Vercingetorix · Oct 25, 2003, 01:59 pm

It doesn't work that way. Semantics prove nothing.

The_Lone_Liberal · Feb 24, 2005, 08:57 am

Downwiththestereotype is right when, talking about previous posts here, he says

Quote:

Its is simply a play on words. Its the nature of our language that allows this parradox to come about, not the existance or non-existance of god.

It's beyond words. Fundamental to Christian theology is that it is the WORD of God willed itself to become incarnate as the Son of God -- out of love for mankind (his creatures) to take on the full limitations of the flesh and -- with it -- the limitations of mortal language.

Semanticists are like kids who find themselves in their Daddy's workshop and are playing with his tools. For some, words are toys. For others, they are the limited tools that we have for the serious work of understanding what can be within our grasp... I cannot imagine that the former will ever grasp the grownup world of Faith.

Oct 13, 2003, 01:00 am	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Actually, You're wrong, because (1) the first phrase "God Exists" has nothing to do with the second, and (2) even if it were, that's like saying "The sky is green; but this sentence is false, anyway." It proves nothing. After all, it's a paradox. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 13, 2003, 02:49 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	fallen, there are going to be tons of different views here. Nobody is tryning to baffle "us" because there is no us. It's called debate. If you don't agree, say why, and read some of the article of course. So it goes

Oct 14, 2003, 05:56 am	#6 (permalink) (top)
Downwiththestereotype Molten Ash Location: somwhere in the UK Posts: 38	Its is simply a play on words. Its the nature of our language that allows this parradox to come about, not the existance or non-existance of god. Fear is your only god. Downwiththestereotype.

Oct 15, 2003, 12:09 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,467	Almost as ridiculous as the ontological argument. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Oct 12, 2003, 11:50 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	God exists. None of the words in this pair are true. I'm debating what is called the liars paradox. http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm "If (1) is true, then (1) is false. On the other hand, if (1) is false, then it is true to say (1) is false; but, because the Liar Sentence is saying precisely that (namely that it is false), (1) is true. So (1) is true if and only if it is false. Since (1) is one or the other, it is both." Well, there's the proof.

Oct 13, 2003, 02:47 am	#3 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Your trying to baffle us again with bullshit Section 8.

Oct 13, 2003, 11:04 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	FA, I'm trying to debate Tarxis semantic theory, and the liars paradox. The pair that I used was used by Buridan in the late mideval period. If you think it's bullshit say why, or else it doesn't offer much to debate.

Oct 15, 2003, 02:25 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
blockhead Guest Posts: n/a	None of the sentences in this pair. Makes a little more sense. blockhead

Oct 25, 2003, 01:59 pm	#9 (permalink) (top)
Vercingetorix Sedimentary Rock Location: Everywhere. Yes, I see you. Posts: 23	It doesn't work that way. Semantics prove nothing.