I think what happens here is they both cancel each other out, thus both are neither true or false!
If you could convince people of this, that would indicate that they 'want' a solution and are willing to bend semantics to do that.
Also, solutions existing doesn't mean that something is false, but rather that it is internally (and maybe recursively) non-sensical, which is the definition of a paradox. Under predicate logic, I'm not aware of any particular real-world application of paradoxes except to note that they exist.
When I move towards an object, I have to move half way there (1/2 way there). Then I move half way again (3/4 way there). half way again (7/8). But if I have to keep moving half way to get to the object, how do I ever get there?
Drace, thelistman, Zeno's paradox actually has to be carefully worded in order to compel the appropriate reading:
As you know, the hare challenged the tortoise to a race. But this time the hare decided to give the tortoise a headstart of half the course, then set off. But when the hare caught up to the tortoise's starting point, the tortoise had already covered half the distance from that point to the finish, and when the hare caught up to that point, yet another half. Would the hare ever be able to catch the tortoise?
The issue here is that the paradox is worded such that you're compelled to read as if there was a recursive relation in it. But if you were to derive an equation for the path of the tortoise and the hare, you'll find that their velocities are constant and therefore there's no real problem.
I eat because I am miserable. I'm miserable because I eat
I'd call this reflective of the positive feedback cycle of depression. The catchy way of saying it would be catch-22, as phrased in the WWII novel titled by that term: You have to be crazy to be exempt from flying missions, but you can't be crazy if you want out of missions!
I suppose the answer would be there is no truth? and o make peace you must go to war, the answer to that would be to keep your family community country etc. safe you must go to war to keep peace in your country etc.
Ah, again a semantic issue: this is not a paradox and can be explained by set notation.
"Nothing" is a member of the set "everything", therefore "nothing" does not entail "everything", but "everything" also entails "nothing".
However, if you then say that nothing and everything are mutually exclusive, the logical inconsistency is not in the logic, but because you've equivocated on "everything".
I learned about the tortoise and the hare one in school in grade 8, with the equation on the bored, they never finished the race, it was realy confusing,
I'm sorry, I'm mentally incapacitated, due to the summer break, and unfortunately, this all looks just like a jumble of shapes to me. Essentially what you're saying is like something where two thing contribute to eachother, and thus make the situation impossible?
Argh, I had written a beautiful formal explanation of Xeno's paradox for your perusal and even had diagrams, then accidentally shut the tab and lost it >_<
Anyway.
If God can do anything, then He can make a stone so big He can't lift it. But, if He can't lift it, them He can't do everything 0_0
The omnipotence paradox! An evangelist's response to this would be that man ought not disbelieve on the basis of their limited reasoning, which is a slight to atheists everywhere.
As with all theism arguments, atheists are begging the question with this one because the above reasoning actually presupposes that God is a man-made creation bound by laws of reason, which theists reject anyway.
