balancing of the scales
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-04-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 07:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

And unicorns might be blue.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheBeardedDude's post
05-04-2013, 07:55 AM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 07:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

If suffering is not quantifiable then we cannot talk about a finite or infinite amount of it. In that case there will be two options, you are either suffering or you are not. If you are suffering for eternity then you are being punished for eternity.

Stretching a finite amount of suffering over an infinite amount of time does not make sense if you cannot quantify suffering. So the options are:

1-Suffer for infinite time
2-Suffer for x amount of time and not suffer for the rest(or viceversa).
3-To not Suffer for any of it.

If your state of suffering is a binary, then those three are the only options.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Techgorilla's post
05-04-2013, 12:50 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 07:55 AM)Techgorilla Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 07:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  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.

If suffering is not quantifiable then we cannot talk about a finite or infinite amount of it. In that case there will be two options, you are either suffering or you are not. If you are suffering for eternity then you are being punished for eternity.

Stretching a finite amount of suffering over an infinite amount of time does not make sense if you cannot quantify suffering. So the options are:

1-Suffer for infinite time
2-Suffer for x amount of time and not suffer for the rest(or viceversa).
3-To not Suffer for any of it.

If your state of suffering is a binary, then those three are the only options.

Quantized is different then quantifiable. If you had X amount of gold and kept on dividing that sample in half....over and over and over again, eventually you would end up with 1 atom of gold. If you divide that one atom, you no longer have gold. Because gold is quantized, you cannot divide it an infinite number of times.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:03 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
Insert Ghandi right next to Hitler..are the scales still balanced?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:08 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 01:03 PM)Dirtnapper324 Wrote:  Insert Ghandi right next to Hitler..are the scales still balanced?

Good luck, I asked a similar question earlier and he never even acknowledged it. So far this has been one of the more dishonest threads I've seen. He posts a statement then modifies the statement or ignores any criticism.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
I think this is a moot point because Hitler's suffering is not infinite. It has a starting point. While the duration of his suffering is headed towards infinity, it would not have occurred prior to his life here on Earth. At any time we can trace back to the starting point of his supposed torment in hell (April 30, 1945 according to Google); the measurement of his time in hell will always be less than infinity.

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 12:50 PM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(05-04-2013 07:55 AM)Techgorilla Wrote:  If suffering is not quantifiable then we cannot talk about a finite or infinite amount of it. In that case there will be two options, you are either suffering or you are not. If you are suffering for eternity then you are being punished for eternity.

Stretching a finite amount of suffering over an infinite amount of time does not make sense if you cannot quantify suffering. So the options are:

1-Suffer for infinite time
2-Suffer for x amount of time and not suffer for the rest(or viceversa).
3-To not Suffer for any of it.

If your state of suffering is a binary, then those three are the only options.

Quantized is different then quantifiable. If you had X amount of gold and kept on dividing that sample in half....over and over and over again, eventually you would end up with 1 atom of gold. If you divide that one atom, you no longer have gold. Because gold is quantized, you cannot divide it an infinite number of times.

My bad i was reading "Quantified" not "Quantized". Allow me to re write my objection.

If suffering is not quantized then it would mean i can be divided an "infinite" amount of times, sure. But no matter how small the suffering, it will still be suffering and thus it is punishment. And because this is happening in an eternal time frame the punishment is eternal.

In that case you are still giving the person an infinite punishment for a finite crime. Maybe the quantity of pain is finite but the fact is the suffering is eternal.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 04:46 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(05-04-2013 07:35 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  
(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.

If it is continuous, not quantized, there very quickly come a point where it is so minor as to be hardly pain at all.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2013, 05:10 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 11:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A lot of atheists here have a problem with eternal damnation. They think it is unfair to punish somebody for eternity. Their thinking goes like this: Hitler, as bad as his actions were, his actions were finite so it would be unfair to give him an infinite amount of punishment. What these atheists fail to realize is that a finite amount of punishment can be spread over an inifinte amount of time.

Example: Suppose God judged Hitler and found that for his crimes against humanity Hitler deserves to endure X amount of pain. God then decides that the finite amount of pain Hitler is to endure be spread over an infinite time period. So God commands Lucifer that each year Hitler is in hell Hitler is to recieve only half of X. If X starts out as 1 trillion BTUs of heat or pain, Lucifer only dispenses a half trillion BTUs in the first year Hitler is in hell....that leaves Hitler with half a trillion BTUs to endure to satisfy his punishment. However, in the next year Lucifer only dispense a quarter trillion BTUs, in the third year Lucifer only dispenses an eighth and so on and so forth. Hitler never gets out of hell, his finite punishment goes on for eternity.

What an idiotic thread. Another idiotic thread by BlowJob. Go get an education, troll. There is no hell, (the Hebrews, and Jebus did NOT believe in it) ... you have no clue where the idea even came from, and when it developed. You do know I hope your St. Paul did not believe in it, or even immortality for all, just all all the Jews at the time. And stop your bullshit about the bad angel, Lucifer, until and unless you are ready to discuss the origins of the concept of angelic beings.

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
05-04-2013, 05:33 PM
RE: balancing of the scales
(04-04-2013 11:49 AM)Heywood Jahblome Wrote:  A lot of atheists here have a problem with eternal damnation. They think it is unfair to punish somebody for eternity. Their thinking goes like this: Hitler, as bad as his actions were, his actions were finite so it would be unfair to give him an infinite amount of punishment. What these atheists fail to realize is that a finite amount of punishment can be spread over an inifinte amount of time.

Example: Suppose God judged Hitler and found that for his crimes against humanity Hitler deserves to endure X amount of pain. God then decides that the finite amount of pain Hitler is to endure be spread over an infinite time period. So God commands Lucifer that each year Hitler is in hell Hitler is to recieve only half of X. If X starts out as 1 trillion BTUs of heat or pain, Lucifer only dispenses a half trillion BTUs in the first year Hitler is in hell....that leaves Hitler with half a trillion BTUs to endure to satisfy his punishment. However, in the next year Lucifer only dispense a quarter trillion BTUs, in the third year Lucifer only dispenses an eighth and so on and so forth. Hitler never gets out of hell, his finite punishment goes on for eternity.

You equivocate here, I believe and it is the notion of Hell, not something else you are concerned about.
Any eternal punishment, as advocated by fundamentalists, could vary in intensity; it would still be eternal, as posited by the Hell mongers, and your fatuous concerns regarding degrees and duration comes across as obscurantist gibberish.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: