I've reconsidered, and this is addressed to the author: It's actually difficult to get things quite this degree of perfectly wrong in order to arrive at these conclusions; it's the mathematical equivalent of proving that 1+1=3, and, like said proofs, does a better job confusing people than providing any useful insights. Which is indicative either that you're trolling, or communication issues.

Which is certainly not to rule out communication issues, of which I had considerable issue when I first joined, and which can look similar to such trolling. If this is a communication issue, however, I must advise you to be a little more cautious of doubling down on the wrong conclusions (another issue I had considerable issue with, getting involved in arguments arising entirely from miscommunication) - which this post has a bit of a smell of, in insisting on definitions that have already been challenged.

If the whole of your argument is that a finite number is always smaller than infinity - well, yes. Unbounded utility functions wreck all kinds of havoc in utilitarianism, for exactly this reason, and are generally rejected. Insisting that utility can be unlimited is making an assertion of an unbounded utility - if one of your assumptions going into utilitarianism is that utility functions are unbounded, you're making a foray into an area of utility theory that is acknowledged to be full of weird outcomes. Of a similar nature are your infinitesimal arguments, which avoid the immediate problem of unbounded utility functions, but which you supplement with zero opportunity cost (which results in an infinitesimal number divided by zero when calculating opportunity cost, and further weirdness). Furthermore, not all rationalists are even utilitarians (I'm not, and I consider the concept of "utility" to be so poorly defined as to be worthless).

But regardless of all of that, I'll revert to the more substantive criticism of your criticisms of rationality: Deliberately creating questions without an answer, and using them to criticize an answer-generating system for its inability to arrive at the correct answer, is just sass without substance.