balancing of the scales
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-04-2013, 04:42 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 01:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is no error in my thinking, Yours is errant. Any finite number can be divided into infinite parts and while those parts might approach 0 values they would never arrive at 0.
But it will very quickly get to such a small value that it may as well be 0.

It wouldn't matter how much pain you were in, if it was forever you would surely get use to it.

But according to Blow job you will feel less pain and torment as the years go on, right up to the point where the pain is nothing more than a mosquito bite. Which then goes on to get easier, and easier, and easier...

Eventually your sitting around a poker table with Satan just chilling, watching as new people come down to hell and go through the same lame ass process you did.

This is your argument? Seriously? Can I just sign up to go to hell now then? Might as well jump down there now, quit this life bulshit. I bet hell has all the sexy hookers and drugs, after a finite amount of time in pain I would have an infinite amount of time to fuck around.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 09:59 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 03:35 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 02:42 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  They are moot because I am not making a point about hell. My point is that a finite punishment can be made to last an eternity....i simply used hellish imagary to make the point bevause this audience is familiar with it. What do your quotes have to do with my point? Nothing.....therefore your quotes are moot in the context of this conversation.

Dodgy



This is my first interaction with you... and... based on this (I'm not going to beat my head against a brick wall), it'll probably be my last.

Have fun.

Go back and read the very first post in this thread. Specifically the sentance that starts out with, "what atheists fail to realize....". If your reading comprehension is so poor that you can't see that I am not talking about hell, then I don't welcome your interaction. That sentence was very clear.... I stated a finite amount of punishment can be spread over an infinite period of time.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:11 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 03:01 PM)Techgorilla Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 02:26 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  Except he would suffer for eternity...the initial part would be the most brutal and it would get less intense over time, but it would never end. Just because you could do the last stretch standing on your head doesn't mean it isn't punishment.

Also the initial part could last quit a long time simply by choosing a different fraction.



How can you say an imperceptible amount of pain is suffering. By that definition the pressure exerted on your skin by a mosquito landing in your hair can be called suffering.

Yes you can modify the fraction and make it last a hell of a lot. But the problem is that after a certain point the pain would be so small that it can not qualify as suffering.

The concept of imperceptible amount of pain is nonsensical. Pain by defintion is suffering or discomfort. Impreceptible pain would be suffering or discomfort that is not suffering or discomfort. Of course such a notion is silly.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:13 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 01:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  There is no error in my thinking, Yours is errant. Any finite number can be divided into infinite parts and while those parts might approach 0 values they would never arrive at 0.


But it will very quickly get to such a small value that it may as well be 0.

But not 0.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:20 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 10:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  But it will very quickly get to such a small value that it may as well be 0.

But not 0.

A feather scraping across the skin isn't nothing, but do you think that's something you'd expect in hell?

You should really go back and re-read this argument. It's really silly.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
04-04-2013, 10:25 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 02:48 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  All this talk about personal beliefs, makes me wonder what it is you are trying to accomplish.

Are you amending your beliefs for acceptance, to win converts or to win your arguments?

I haven't ammended any of my beliefs concerning God since I started posting here. I dont find your arguments against God's existence to be compelling. If you look at my interactions with atheists and theists it should be clear I am not out to make friends with either camp. I'm not here to circle-jerk.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 10:27 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 10:20 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 10:13 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  But not 0.

A feather scraping across the skin isn't nothing, but do you think that's something you'd expect in hell?

I'm not talking about hell.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-04-2013, 11:09 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 02:49 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 02:44 PM)Katiegal Wrote:  Well, I know other posters have said this simple because it is so obvious, but I'm not going to read every post so I feel compelled to say it again; atheists have trouble with eternal damnation because it pretty much requires the belief in a god, and since atheists...

Your analysis fails to pass other elementary issues of critical thinking, too.

Precisely the point. I have 0 problems with god, satan, heaven, hell, eternal torment/punishment, unfair punishment, plagues, god's wrath, god's jealousy, etc. Because I do not believe in the absurd, the irrational, or the nonexistent.

Drinking Beverage Eternal punishment in hell is fine by me. So is eternal feasting in Valhalla, living in Hades after death, etc.

Yeah, it's fine by me too...EXCEPT when it's taught to 5 year olds
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 06:35 AM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 10:11 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(04-04-2013 03:01 PM)Techgorilla Wrote:  How can you say an imperceptible amount of pain is suffering. By that definition the pressure exerted on your skin by a mosquito landing in your hair can be called suffering.

Yes you can modify the fraction and make it last a hell of a lot. But the problem is that after a certain point the pain would be so small that it can not qualify as suffering.

The concept of imperceptible amount of pain is nonsensical. Pain by defintion is suffering or discomfort. Impreceptible pain would be suffering or discomfort that is not suffering or discomfort. Of course such a notion is silly.

Your point if i'm not mistaken is, that you can have finite amount of pain stretched over an infinite amount of time. Thus getting infinite suffering, but not infinite punishment. But infinite suffering is an infinite punishment.

If there is no point during Hitlers sentence where the fraction of pain is so small that he is no longer feeling it, then he will be suffering for eternity and thus he has been sentenced to an eternal punishment. If on the other hand there will be a time where Hitler's pain is so small as to be negligible, then it is the same as to be sentenced to be in pain for X amount of years.

Punishment is not only the amount of pain to be inflicted but also the amount of time in which it will be delivered. Saying "You will be subjected to x amount of pain", is definitely a punishment even if the time is not defined. But Saying "You will receive x amount of pain divided by y fraction each year" (considering the person will live forever and that even the smallest amount of pain is suffering) is an eternal punishment.

If you define a time for the punishment then that time becomes part of the punishment. And if either the time or amount of pain is infinite then the punishment is infinite. The same way an infinitely tall building can be considered infinite even if the other dimensions are not.

I don't see how the fact that the person is being prescribed a finite amount of pain makes the eternal punishment bit not valid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 07:35 AM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 06:35 AM)Techgorilla Wrote:  If there is no point during Hitlers sentence where the fraction of pain is so small that he is no longer feeling it, then he will be suffering for eternity and thus he has been sentenced to an eternal punishment. If on the other hand there will be a time where Hitler's pain is so small as to be negligible, then it is the same as to be sentenced to be in pain for X amount of years.

The claim that there would come a time when you would not feel any pain assumes that suffering is quantized. If suffering is quantized then you are correct, it would be the same as suffering for X number of years. If suffering is not quantized then a finite amount of it could be stretched over an infinite time period.

Vosur, Anjele, Hanoff.....have you learned nothing in my absence?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: