Liar Paradox - Check this out

[Palmares]

A friend of mine and I were talking about paradoxes before, and he sent me this site especially about liar paradoxes. If you are bored, check it out;

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/p/par-liar.htm

[Pete]

I summon confusion down upon me!

[Pete]

I understand. Or is that a lie? If it is false than this sentence is true. Only I cannot declare a phrase true in the same statement that the point is made. So my original statement is either false or true based on the legitimancy of my thrid statement. Is it true? I will call it statement (#3) for simplicity. Actually I don't want to get into that arguement. My brain is already frying by reading that article. It is the kind of thing that my old Modern Western Civilization teacher would love.

[Palmares]

I always lie... :)

[Pete]

God exists.
None of the sentences in this pair is true.

Assume first that both are true.
That means that they are both false.
If the bottom one is false, then the top on must be true.
This proves God exists logically.

[Blibblob]

You lie...

[praxis1966]

The God sentence pairing is horse shit. It's like saying:

I exist.
Neither of these statements are true.

By this logic I have just disproved my own existence. It is, as I have already said, horse shit. If I don't exist, how did I make this post, or drink all of my brother's beer.

[Pete]

It is just an example of how the statement can be used. It is from a middle age friar.

[Palmares]

Quote: from CrazyPete on 1:37 am on April 10, 2003
It is just an example of how the statement can be used. It is from a middle age friar.

Do you mean a middle aged liar?

Everything is a lie. ;)

[canikickit]

This is one of my favourite topics on the planet. If you can master this logic you will become an irrefutable genius.

I have discussed it further in this thread, as I did before.

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=713 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=713)

[Pete]

middle age as in from the middle ages

[Robot Rebellion]

-Sustainable growth,
-Free-market
-Price determines supply and demand, and yet supply and demand determine price
-Anarcho-capitalist
-Military intelligence
-Property is designed for holistic benefit, and yet attempts to gear toward holistic benefit contradict the sanctity of property
-The libertarian capitalist states taxes represent theft, and yet taxes on taxes also represent theft, even though capitalism purportedly supports returning stolen property to the original owner.
-Proudhon, "...if supply and demand alone determine value, how can we tell what is an excess and what is a sufficiency"? ( price can't be simultaneously a communicator of a good's value, and a communicator of its being mispriced)
-It is wrong for the workers to organize/unionize against the owners, but not vice versa...
-The oversight of the business will come from another business.
-The past justifies the claim on property in the present (like I own it because I bought it), but yet the present justifies theft in the past (like removing natives from the land you 'own').

(Edited by Robot Rebellion at 12:14 am on April 18, 2003)


(Edited by Robot Rebellion at 12:15 am on April 18, 2003)