chromeVidrio
chromeVidrio t1_ix9tuve wrote
Reply to comment by captainsalmonpants in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
It just means whether it’s true or false is not known, but we still know it has to be one or the other.
chromeVidrio t1_ix9rcp2 wrote
Reply to comment by captainsalmonpants in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
It doesn’t matter. We still know the right answer can only be one or the other, true or false, albeit we may not know which.
chromeVidrio t1_ix9eo5e wrote
Reply to comment by captainsalmonpants in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
Define “have” however you want. The answer still has to be either true or false. Your definition might change the answer, however.
chromeVidrio t1_ix995gq wrote
Reply to comment by iiioiia in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
As for that statement, “There is a God(s),” it still has to be true or false, right? No, we cannot conclude which is right because it is unobservable, presumably, but we know it has to be either true or false. That is, God either exists or it does not.
If not, what’s the third option?
chromeVidrio t1_ix95o08 wrote
Reply to comment by iiioiia in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
Interesting. I’m trying to think of a situation where something is neither true nor false, and I am completely drawing a blank.
Are we sure this even exists in nature?
What is not true and not false?
chromeVidrio t1_ix8y6u1 wrote
Logically, how does that make sense?
Something is either true or false, no?
For example:
> I have a dog.
That has to be true or false. There is no third option. Now, knowing the right answer, that’s up in the air, but not that it has to be either true or false. We know it’s one of those.
Enlighten me as to why I am wrong.
chromeVidrio t1_ix3jdu2 wrote
Reply to I’ll never be as cool as my grandpa was. Here he is with my mom and uncle around 1960. by Fragrant_University7
Jim Halpert Dad
chromeVidrio t1_ix2do1o wrote
I don’t have one unless I want to
That said, this post made me start doing it. Kind of like how you just switched to manual breathing.
chromeVidrio t1_ix05vlw wrote
Reply to comment by DrunkStepmother in NFL Linebacker Found $672K Pokemon Card And Abruptly Retired by Flankerooski719
I’m tired of that trope. I was an NCAA athlete. You ever try to get good grades in college and play a sport full time at that level? We do more than you. If we graduate with the same GPA as you while playing a sport, we are smarter than you. We are also more athletic than you. Are some of us dumb? Yeah, but so are some people who aren’t on the team.
chromeVidrio t1_iwzfv1v wrote
Reply to comment by katheranne0699 in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, USA. [OC] [4032x3024] by katheranne0699
Amazing!
chromeVidrio t1_iwzdbio wrote
That can’t be right now, right?
Seems too green.
Beautiful park.
chromeVidrio t1_iwx7s3l wrote
Reply to [Image] Do Not Back Down. by btce_arno
Eh
chromeVidrio t1_ix9w3px wrote
Reply to comment by iiioiia in On the advantages of believing that nothing is true by Vico1730
I’ve been thinking about this, and I think what you’ve essentially done is changed the definition of true and false. That is, equivocation. Under your definition, true ≠ not false and false ≠ not true, leaving room for a third option, which isn’t possible if true = not false and false = not true.