Hypothetical Question for Christians (involving aliens)

[Angrboda]

It would seem in that case that you have an example of the Liar's Paradox, and neither conclusion would be safe.

that's not how a liars paradox works.
Liar paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[/url][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox#p-search]
In philosophy and logic, the classical liar paradox or liar's paradox is the statement of a liar who states that he or she is lying: for instance, declaring that "I am lying" or "everything I say is false". If the liar is indeed lying, then the liar is telling the truth, which means the liar is lying. In "this sentence is a lie" the paradox is strengthened in order to make it amenable to more rigorous logical analysis. It is still generally called the "liar paradox" although abstraction is made precisely from the liar himself. Trying to assign to this statement, the strengthened liar, a classical binary truth value leads to a contradiction.
If "this sentence is false" is true, then the sentence is false, but if the sentence states that it is false, and it is false, then it must be true, and so on.

What the bible shows is the nature of the Anti Christ in that He will lie cheat and whatever it takes to win favor and discredit the processess of salvation. to invalidate it to break the will of the people to seek salvation so no more get saved. A liar's paradox make the statement that everything I say is a lie. if that were the truth then you would have a liar's paradox.

Neither party neither situation is offering a lie. The original OP's situation Tib's aliens never heard of Jesus, which again is what I believe our jobs would be after we spend 1000 years with God learning. kinda of a go out into all of the universe and seek and save the lost.

Situation 2 my was an example of how the anti christ could slip under our radar simply because we over compartmentalize by placing religion with mysticism  by identifying god ONLY in the land of magic rather than in the known/knowable universe. a simple label could keep all of you terrible smart people from see the events of revelation unfold as described. just because when you hear the word antichrist you think of a devil, or some other mystical being, rather than an ill intentioned alien or just an oblivious one.

Again lying is not the key to the alien's message here. it is your inability to identify and categorize God correctly is the issue.

Your complaint would be arguably correct if I had indeed referred to the classical liar's paradox, however I did not do so, and so your rebuttal is simply an example of you choosing to take one interpretation of my meaning over possible others. As a matter of record, the label and the idea of the liar's paradox has been used to refer to everything from the original statement of the liar's paradox in ancient Greece to any statement or set of statements that is self-referential in such a way that two equally valid interpretations can lead to opposite conclusions about the statement or statements' truth content. This can be seen from the variety of its representation in the philosophical literature ranging in discussions from the classical paradox which you cite to discussions of such things as the the strengthened liar's paradox, the deflationary theory of truth, and particular examples such as the discussion of it in Graham Priest's work on dialetheism. In a sense, your choosing to focus on a very literal interpretation having basis in the original liar's paradox to the exclusion of broader meanings such as exist in the literature is an example of the genetic fallacy. Moreover since I was attempting to draw attention to an ambiguity in the interpretation of the truth content of the alien's culture and beliefs posed by your statement, a literal correspondence to the classical liar's paradox isn't essential anyway, as that was not my point, and your choosing to interpret it that way was just an error on your part. Broadly speaking, I was noting that, if one phrased your comment as something along the lines of, "My beliefs are true because their beliefs are false if my beliefs are true," then one encounters an ambiguity or paradox in the evaluation of the combined truth content that seems asserted by the conflict between your culture and theirs. So, no, I don't think I necessarily erred in my remark, and even if I did, your hyper-literal focus on the nature of the classical liar's paradox does not in any way demonstrate that I did.

I don't know if there's such a thing as a perfect idiot, but if there is, you're certainly in the running.

idk did you see the last post I answered about a liar's paradox? that person was a little too eager to use a term with the word liar in it or she/it was not able to grasp it's full meaning.. I'd ay so long as that person draws breath I think I'm fairly safe from be a 'perfect' idiot..

If one is going to criticize another based upon a belief that one is ultimately more correct than they are, one had best be certain that one is indeed correct, lest they in hindsight appear to have been merely foolish and egotistical. I think someone here may have been a little too eager to use a term they didn't understand and in hindsight appears to have been an idiot, the outstanding question is just who that person was.