Exposing the Intellectual Bankruptcy of Atheists Criticizing Religion

[Angrboda]

The lair’s paradox presents no problem for the logical version of the PNC, no statement can be both true and false, because it (the liar's paradox) tacitly relies on something impossible: an essentially order series without a first member. Consider the following liars paradox:

This sentence is false.

In this proposition, the meaning of the sentence depends on the meaning of the subject of the sentence. The meaning of the sentence’s subject depends on the meaning of the subject of the sentence’s subject and so on. The series has no first member and it looks something like this:

This sentence is false.
(This sentence is false) is false.
((This sentense is false) is false) is false.
(((This sentence is false) is false) is false) is false…

This is an essentially ordered series without a first member.

The meaning of the final member of this series, the simple statement “this sentence is false”, depends on the meaning of a first member. Without a first member to supply meaning to the phrase, “this sentence”, the lair’s paradox has no meaning. No one can assign a truth value to a proposition that has no meaningful content. You cannot give what you do not have. The logical PNC stands.

Saying that the sentence has no meaning is one of the standard replies, and the reason for going with the strengthened liar's paradox. Saying that "This sentence is not true" is meaningless is a way around the paradox, but at the cost of merely being arbitrary in what you allow to have meaning. It sure looks like it has meaning. What that has to do with an ordered series is something I'm afraid to ask. It looks like you vomited up part of Tarsky's T-theory. The paradox in no way implies that load of rubbish.