TheMadFool

I thought the core issue was some kind of breakdown in rationality: the ass can find no reason to choose one stack over the other and thus will starve...

You all are right. A: this statement is false A has no truth value So, we should be saying: "A is neither true nor false" instead of ''this statement ...

Your take on the matter is quite different and it may not be how others consider what the issue here is. If I understood you correctly you mean to say...

Sorry if you find that wrong. I was replying to andrewk's as to where such a treatment of the paradox may lead us.

B: This statement is neither true nor false Available options: 1. True 2. False 3. True and false 4. Neither true and false The above four options are...

First note that A: this statement is false B: this statement is neither true nor false For A the truth-value is indeterminate and we end up concluding...

If I can't distinguish the difference between A and B, then it can be inferred that A and B are the equivalent. Logic can't differentiate ''this state...

I beg to differ. In logic we have no way of distinguishing ''what is yor name?'' from ''how old are you?'' These two are the same so far as logic is c...

Logical equivalence of two given statements means that the given statements must have the same truth value in all possible worlds. I've shown you how ...

Please read my previous post

Also... ''This statement is false'' is a claim about the truth value of itself. Analysis results in a truth value, if one may call it that, of neither...

So you're saying that B: This statement is neither true nor false is 1. Not true 2. Not false 3. Not true and false 4. Not neither true nor false It a...

Below is a new look at the Liar's paradox. The Liar statement A: This statement is false. Options available for the truth value of A 1. True 2. False ...

X-) LOL. Thanks for your time guys. I'm wrong.

I think you're right. B cannot be true in a direct way. However... It can be 1. True 2. False 3. Both true and false 4. Neither true nor false B can b...

Let me try to explain it as clearly as possible. The liar statement: A: This sentence is false Please note that A is only concerned about the truth va...

Please follow the line of reasoning... The Liar statement: A: This statement is false Available truth value options for the Liar statement are: 1. Tru...

No I'm not conflating the two statements. Please read below: A: THIS (A) statement is false is 1. Not true 2. Not false 3. Not both true AND false The...

Please read my responses to other posters.

But how do you know religious beliefs are false? Can you tell me a method which I can use to show that god is a false belief ?

You're right. If I think of anything new I'll come back. Thanks

Thanks for your informative response. However can you name some alternative hypotheses to God.

A: This statement is false is the original Liar statement. Upon logical analysis we end up in a true-false never-ending loop. The end result being tha...

A(the liar statement) =This statement is false B=This statement is neither true nor false As per how the paradox is known A cannot be true and cannot ...

It comes across to me that you're making a distinction between the actual existence of a thing and belief in the existence of that thing. How do we di...

How do you know god-beliefs are false or true for that matter? This is the issue at hand. Your counter-objections to my argument is a circular one. Yo...

Well, what are the options available? The only other option we have is that everything arose out of chance. How do we measure or verify that? The shor...

What I want to say is I'm simply following scientific methodology here. To verify the existence of a hypothetical entity we look for its effects - acc...

You are ignoring observable effects in religion while calling on the same (observable effects) in science.

I would throw a shiva lingam at youX-)

Similarly I can take you to attend a temple worship

Ad hominem:D...a survival skill

Exactly. So shouldn't logicians be cautious about condemning a useful way of thinking? Fallacies are part of the repertoire of our survival skills.

How do you distinguish a stone and belief in a stone then?

In the case of god there is evidence in the form of temples, prayers, rituals, behaviors, etc.

You're telling me to discern the difference between god and belief in god. I'm asking you to do the same - how do you distinguish an atom from belief ...

So fallacies do have a important practical use.

In response I quote you below

Please read my reply to Chany

This same logic must apply to science and all its knowledge. There's no way of distinguishing whether atoms, molecules, etc. actually exist or whether...

I remember you posted on a thread regarding how many observations cancel out subjectivity and the result is objectivity. Same principle applies here. ...

The way I see it is people are some kind of measuring instrument and we detect/measure god's effect. Each person being unique we detect and measure go...

Think Zeno's pardox. Logically/mathematically one CANNOT travel any distance. However one can easily walk from one place to another. This is a perfect...

Good point. However I think you're being unfair. In science light is both a particle and a wave. Waves and particles are mutually exclusive BUT that d...

Well, scientifically speaking, all of them exist.

Sorry. I've adressed every counterpoint made against my position.

No I'm not trolling. FLUX23 found some humor in all this. I was just joining in the fun. As for my arguments they are sincere attempts to understand o...

X-)

Ok. So what sort of evidence do you want of god's existence?