a proof against infinite series and therefore eternal hell

jpett · Dec 1, 2013

A proof against past infinities, present (actual) infinities, and potential (future) infinities.
1.If individual A has an infinite amount of gold coins, and gives individual B every third gold coin, then individual A must have more gold coins, since he has 2/3rd's more.
2. Yet, individual B must have an equal amount as well. (Since there is a numerical equality between the first set of two in each set, and the next set of two, and the next, and each additional set of two, all the subsets of two within each set are paired, and therefore, both sets are equal.
3. Yet, individual A can not have more gold coins and an equal amount of gold coins in relation to those that individual B has.
4. Therefore, infinite series are logically impossible.
5. Therefore, past infinities, present infinities, and future infinities are logically impossible.
6. Therefore, eternal hell is logically impossible.

DorothyG · Dec 1, 2013

“My thoughts are nothing like your thoughts,” says the Lord.
“And my ways are far beyond anything you could imagine.
For just as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so my ways are higher than your ways
and my thoughts higher than your thoughts."

(Isaiah 55:8-9 NLT)

jpett · Dec 1, 2013

God and his universe, if a god exists in the first place, established logical and scientific laws that must be true. Nothing can violate them. God, if God exists, chose things to be this way.

Anonimous · Dec 1, 2013

man....and I thought Joel Osteen was a happy man...

Anonimous · Dec 1, 2013

Hmmm. I wonder why non-Christians like to visit Christian sights in the first place and then are curious when they are not acknowledged...

Donkeyfish07 · Dec 1, 2013

jpett said:

The logical impossibility here is that an infinite number can not be "fractionalized" at all. Something has to be "finite" in order to be dived in any fractional terms at all.....whether it be halves, thirds, fourths, or any other type of attempt to slice it into a quantifiable percentage.

Say a coin is given to the guy in your example, and the other 2 are given to the another guy.....all that would happen is the number of coins both people have keep going up in number, in the same proportions, for eternity. How is that supposed to help your point? You can't run out of coins either way

maxwel · Dec 1, 2013

jpett,

You seem to be another atheist who doesn't much like the idea of hell.

If I was an atheist, I wouldn't like hell either.

Maybe one day, instead of trying to pretend sin has no CONSEQUENCES,
you'll decide to actually deal with the sin.

I sincerely hope you come to God as soon as possible.

God Bless,
Max

ddallen · Dec 3, 2013

jpett said:

A proof against past infinities, present (actual) infinities, and potential (future) infinities.
1.If individual A has an infinite amount of gold coins, and gives individual B every third gold coin, then individual A must have more gold coins, since he has 2/3rd's more.
2. Yet, individual B must have an equal amount as well. (Since there is a numerical equality between the first set of two in each set, and the next set of two, and the next, and each additional set of two, all the subsets of two within each set are paired, and therefore, both sets are equal.
3. Yet, individual A can not have more gold coins and an equal amount of gold coins in relation to those that individual B has.
4. Therefore, infinite series are logically impossible.
5. Therefore, past infinities, present infinities, and future infinities are logically impossible.
6. Therefore, eternal hell is logically impossible.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of infinity. It is not a number - it is an abstract idea and as such cannot be dealt with as a number.

posthuman · Dec 3, 2013

jpett said:

your error is in (2)

individual B does not have to have 'equal amount' as individual A.

number all the coins {1, 2, 3, 4, .... }
and let B own every coin whose assignment is divisible by 3.
so A owns every coin whose assignment is 1 or 2 mod(3).
for every triplet of coins (maintaining the natural ordering), A owns a pair (1%3, 2%3) and B owns a singleton (0%3).

while it is true that you can group the (unordered) pairs, and there are an equal amount of pairs of coins in A's wallet as there are single coins in B's wallet, you're forgetting that you are counting pairs of coins for A. the total amount of coins A has is still twice what B has.

so everything after (2) is negated.

therefore Math isn't broken; you just don't understand how to use it.

GISMYS · Dec 3, 2013

ALMIGHTY GOD is outside of time,time was created for mankind,GOD says a thousand years is as a day to him and a day is as a thousand years. ALMIGHTY GOD IS AWESOME!!! HUH?

isaria · Dec 3, 2013

There has been many illusions of this, "middle" "same" 50/50....
A directors evil cut make people look good and look same but reality was not middle. was evil illegal cuts and holocasting all times....
maybe there was more than a and b there was a c in there or maybe a d who was 1% survive on , giving and giving and working but body corp on that hey.
One was said be 3 but was 1 or two not shown as they shadowed therefor it was actually more beings than said and or the directors cut of 2 woman and a man but reality was straight spirit had wing broken and attatched to enemy who used it and said look im main and im with this man and woman but the real main was shadowed and lied bout and holocasted and had her energy in enemies body locked in there .The enemy felt beautiful and good while real main carried he the fake surgery main look like jog exercise fake model felt and looked good but was bad .the look felt bad but was good. ah

Things are not as they seem always and evil directors and bad christians and bad muslims who lie so much.
I was catholic in my time and told by a people at fair "you spririt not welcome unless you say you are someone else" that not my name i say. and that not my main....human....

jpett · Dec 3, 2013

there is a 1 to 1 correspondence between individual A's set (1 on into infinity) and individual B's set, therefore both would have to be equal as well as unequal which is a contradiction. Therefore, infinities are contradictory. It is not myself that doesn't understand but it is you who do not understand. Learn some logic then try to understand the argument properly.

posthuman · Dec 3, 2013

jpett said:

the number of coins that A has and the number of coins that B has are not the sets you are comparing. you are comparing a binary variable that is 1 if they possess any coins from a cover of subsets of size 3 and 0 if they do not. the sum of these variables trivially is equal for A and B since in the cover you are using, they both possess a coin, so the binary variable is 1 for each subset for both A and B. this isn't the same thing as comparing their relative wealth.

suppose instead of coins, A has an infinite number of pizzas.
suppose also that A gives to B 1/3 of each pizza.

clearly although they have an infinite amount of pizza, A retains 2/3 of each pizza - so A has twice as much overall pizza as B.

now suppose further that both A and B put their components of each pizza in a pizza box, one box for each partial pizza.

clearly they both need an identical, & infinite number of boxes.

your argument is based on the premise that the amount of pizza A has must equal the number of pizza boxes B has.

we in the logic business call this a "non-sequitur."

A's stack of pizza boxes is just as high, but weighs twice as much as B's.

jpett · Dec 4, 2013

posthuman said:

the number of coins that A has and the number of coins that B has are not the sets you are comparing. you are comparing a binary variable that is 1 if they possess any coins from a cover of subsets of size 3 and 0 if they do not. the sum of these variables trivially is equal for A and B since in the cover you are using, they both possess a coin, so the binary variable is 1 for each subset for both A and B. this isn't the same thing as comparing their relative wealth.

suppose instead of coins, A has an infinite number of pizzas.
suppose also that A gives to B 1/3 of each pizza.

clearly although they have an infinite amount of pizza, A retains 2/3 of each pizza - so A has twice as much overall pizza as B.

now suppose further that both A and B put their components of each pizza in a pizza box, one box for each partial pizza.

clearly they both need an identical, & infinite number of boxes.

your argument is based on the premise that the amount of pizza A has must equal the number of pizza boxes B has.

we in the logic business call this a "non-sequitur."

A's stack of pizza boxes is just as high, but weighs twice as much as B's.

its not a non sequitur, its a clear contradiction. The conclusion follows necessarily from the premises.

posthuman · Dec 4, 2013

jpett said:

show me.

you can post all the statements you want, but you haven't backed anything up yet.

if you understand what i posted, show me where it is wrong. use math. use reason and logic.

k?

else, a-priori i'm going with the assumption you have no idea what you are talking about and simply shouting empty words. because so far, empty words is the only type of argument you've made.

posthuman · Dec 4, 2013

lol OK nevermind,

jpett got banned.

nuts; i was trying to send him a PM to offer math tutoring.

Search

a proof against infinite series and therefore eternal hell

jpett

Banned

DorothyG

Guest

jpett

Banned

Anonimous

Guest

Anonimous

Guest

Attachments

Donkeyfish07

Guest

maxwel

Senior Member

ddallen

Guest

posthuman

Senior Member

GISMYS

Banned

isaria

Guest

jpett

Banned

posthuman

Senior Member

jpett

Banned

posthuman

Senior Member

posthuman

Senior Member