Justification of hell?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-09-2013, 06:49 PM
RE: Justification of hell?
(13-09-2013 06:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 06:12 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  I am only trying to show that given a certain set of assumptions, a finite punishment can be delivered over an infinite time frame....that it is logically possible for an eternal punishment to be just(a finite amount of punishment given for a finite offense).

Great. You failed. A "finite" punishment is a quantized concept. A "finite" (anything) quantized over the infinite is imperceptible. Something imperceptible, does not meet the definition of "suffering".

You also make the common street level mistake when talking about the "eternal". Eternal is not "endless time". It's "timeless". Since you have no training in Theology or Philosophy, you talk out your ass, about concepts you know nothing about.

"Eternal" has more than one definition Bucky. I think most of the peeps understand exactly what I was saying and see through your games.

Anyways, I made it quite clear that one assumption is that any amount of suffering can be felt. Instead of showing this assumption to be unreasonable, you ignore it and introduce your own assumption(that suffering becomes imperceptible). Swapping out assumptions isn't good argumentation Bucky. Instead, you need to show that the assumption I make is logically impossible and should be dismissed. If you can't then my argument is valid given my assumptions. It is logically possible for a just punishment to last an eternity.

The rules of heaven and hell don't have to be the same as the rules of earth and in commonly held beliefs they are not. Is there a place on earth you can go an be in perpetual bliss?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 06:55 PM
RE: Justification of hell?
(13-09-2013 06:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 06:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Great. You failed. A "finite" punishment is a quantized concept. A "finite" (anything) quantized over the infinite is imperceptible. Something imperceptible, does not meet the definition of "suffering".

You also make the common street level mistake when talking about the "eternal". Eternal is not "endless time". It's "timeless". Since you have no training in Theology or Philosophy, you talk out your ass, about concepts you know nothing about.

"Eternal" has more than one definition Bucky. I think most of the peeps understand exactly what I was saying and see through your games.

Anyways, I made it quite clear that one assumption is that any amount of suffering can be felt. Instead of showing this assumption to be unreasonable, you ignore it and introduce your own assumption(that suffering becomes imperceptible). Swapping out assumptions isn't good argumentation Bucky. Instead, you need to show that the assumption I make is logically impossible and should be dismissed. If you can't then my argument is valid given my assumptions. It is logically possible for a just punishment to last an eternity.

The rules of heaven and hell don't have to be the same as the rules of earth and in commonly held beliefs they are not. Is there a place on earth you can go an be in perpetual bliss?

Eternal, in Theology, does not have more than one definition. Thanks for proving your ignorance. Your assertion is nonsensical. Even more so, spread over eternity. So I have nothing to prove. Your premise is irrational, thus can be dismissed, a priori.
I have already, by definition, demonstrated it to be illogical even under your definition, according to the dictionary. You have provided nothing to prove heaven or hell, thus assertions about their rules are irrelevant, until you prove them. They are as meaningful as statements about sparkly unicorns. Perpetual bliss is irrelevant. You made it up. There is no evidence for it. It's meaningless, and irrelevant.
Try harder.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
13-09-2013, 07:04 PM
RE: Justification of hell?
For the record, I feel that being ignored validates my prophecy....

(13-09-2013 03:56 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  You are assuming that suffering in the afterlife is quantized. It doesn't have to be that way. If a soul is capable of perceiving any amount of suffering, then finite punishment can be spread over an infinite time frame.

Asshole. No, really.

Discreetness... Shatters the infinite.

You ought to try it sometime.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 07:18 PM
RE: Justification of hell?
(13-09-2013 06:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 06:49 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  "Eternal" has more than one definition Bucky. I think most of the peeps understand exactly what I was saying and see through your games.

Anyways, I made it quite clear that one assumption is that any amount of suffering can be felt. Instead of showing this assumption to be unreasonable, you ignore it and introduce your own assumption(that suffering becomes imperceptible). Swapping out assumptions isn't good argumentation Bucky. Instead, you need to show that the assumption I make is logically impossible and should be dismissed. If you can't then my argument is valid given my assumptions. It is logically possible for a just punishment to last an eternity.

The rules of heaven and hell don't have to be the same as the rules of earth and in commonly held beliefs they are not. Is there a place on earth you can go an be in perpetual bliss?

Eternal, in Theology, does not have more than one definition. Thanks for proving your ignorance. Your assertion is nonsensical. Even more so, spread over eternity. So I have nothing to prove. Your premise is irrational, thus can be dismissed, a priori.
I have already, by definition, demonstrated it to be illogical even under your definition, according to the dictionary. You have provided nothing to prove heaven or hell, thus assertions about their rules are irrelevant, until you prove them. They are as meaningful as statements about sparkly unicorns. Perpetual bliss is irrelevant. You made it up. There is no evidence for it. It's meaningless, and irrelevant.
Try harder.

There you go again....trying to change the goal post into discussion about the existence of heaven and hell because you argument is too weak for the current discussion. I didn't work the last couple of times you tried it and it won't work now.

Sorry but you lost.... be a good sport and go away.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-09-2013, 07:41 PM (This post was last modified: 14-09-2013 10:02 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Justification of hell?
(13-09-2013 07:18 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 06:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Eternal, in Theology, does not have more than one definition. Thanks for proving your ignorance. Your assertion is nonsensical. Even more so, spread over eternity. So I have nothing to prove. Your premise is irrational, thus can be dismissed, a priori.
I have already, by definition, demonstrated it to be illogical even under your definition, according to the dictionary. You have provided nothing to prove heaven or hell, thus assertions about their rules are irrelevant, until you prove them. They are as meaningful as statements about sparkly unicorns. Perpetual bliss is irrelevant. You made it up. There is no evidence for it. It's meaningless, and irrelevant.
Try harder.

There you go again....trying to change the goal post into discussion about the existence of heaven and hell because you argument is too weak for the current discussion. I didn't work the last couple of times you tried it and it won't work now.

Sorry but you lost.... be a good sport and go away.

There you go again, saying "there you go again".
The goal posts have not been changed. Your argument is destroyed. Instead of attempting deflection, how about attacking the SUBSTANCE of what was said refuting your bullshit. You asserted a fallacy, and failed to support it in any way, with any evidence. Then, instead of addressing the substance, you said "there you go again", because you are too stupid to even attempt to defend the SUBSTANCE of your nonsense. Then you accused me of moving the goal posts, because that is apparently your established STRATEGY of weaseling out of even trying to defend your garbage. You are so obvious. Troll.
Saying an argument is weak, and the goal posts are moved is an obvious attempt at deflecting from the fact that your bullshit argument to justify hell is based on an irrational premise, which has been disproven by simply posting a definition from the dictionary, in it's initial form, which is also based on Theologically incorrect notions. Endless time, (as a concept of eternity, obviously refutes a god, who NEEDS that dimension for it's existence). Any 1st year Apologist student is well aware of that problem.

You've been attempting "proof by assertion" since your first idiot post here. You failed then, and you failed again.
I'm not going anywhere. This is TTA.
Not the "Dumbshit-Believer-Who-Asserts-Shit-With-No-Evidence" forum.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 03:50 AM
RE: Justification of hell?
(13-09-2013 07:04 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  For the record, I feel that being ignored validates my prophecy....

Asshole. No, really.

Discreetness... Shatters the infinite.

You ought to try it sometime.

What do you mean by discreteness shatters the infinite?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 09:39 AM
RE: Justification of hell?
(14-09-2013 03:50 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(13-09-2013 07:04 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  For the record, I feel that being ignored validates my prophecy....

Asshole. No, really.

Discreetness... Shatters the infinite.

You ought to try it sometime.

What do you mean by discreteness shatters the infinite?

Where there is something, there is one thing, but where there is nothing, there is infinite nothingness.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 10:49 AM
RE: Justification of hell?
Bucky and HOC have it.

That is all. Drinking Beverage

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 11:13 AM
RE: Justification of hell?
it is funny how u dont know anything and claim saying everything

where there is smthg really it must b u, if it is not u while it is real then it is surely superior to u, then as u are the only present reference it is surely infinite existence
superior by definition is what cant b known

where there is nothing the present is the possible u, so ur freedom which is also absolute infinite existence

what is free is by definition isolated so absolute and infinite, freedom cant realize totally itself
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-09-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: Justification of hell?
(14-09-2013 11:13 AM)absols Wrote:  it is funny how u dont know anything and claim saying everything

where there is smthg really it must b u, if it is not u while it is real then it is surely superior to u, then as u are the only present reference it is surely infinite existence
superior by definition is what cant b known

where there is nothing the present is the possible u, so ur freedom which is also absolute infinite existence

what is free is by definition isolated so absolute and infinite, freedom cant realize totally itself

Somehow...even not knowing what your saying, I still know that it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Drinking Beverage

"I am a knowledgeable man, I have knowledge. If I knew how I knew what I know, I would know half as much, because it would be clogged up with where I knew it from...that is why I cannot always cite my sources. - David Mitchell
"If we're going to be damned, let's be damned for what we really are." - Captain Picard
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: