• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Disproving god with the laws of logic

A

Archer

Well-Known Member
freethinker44 said:
I recently heard about TAG (transcendental argument for god), and it seems strange to me why christians would use this argument. Not only does TAG not prove god exists, but I find it to be strong proof that god CANNOT exist.

I believe the first law makes gods existence impossible. It is the law of identity, that something cannot be something and not something at the same time. These laws are absolute, and christians would claim they are the physical manifestation of gods mind. Now, in order for these laws to be absolute, they must be objective. So they are true regardless of personal opinion or whether or not any mind is there to judge them at all.

So the law of identity states that something cannot be something and not something, and this is the ABSOLUTE (this is important terminology) unchanging law which reflects the mind of an absolute unchanging being (god). This is the christian argument, and it is perfectly sound... until you take a little further.

Here is my reasoning:
If the laws are absolute, then god cannot be something and nothing either, making god subjective to the laws. If god is subjective to the laws then they are not apart of god. If god is not subjective to the laws then the laws are not absolute and the whole argument falls apart anyways. But, the laws are logically sound and seemingly impossible, indeed, something cannot be something it is not. A rock will always be a rock even under a different name or if there no one there to label a rock it will still be a rock. So the logic is absolute, which would mean god cannot be an absolute being and still exist.

I'm sure this argument won't get past the "language barrier" and we will spend the whole discussion defining the word "god" or something but when you strip it down to its simplest form the laws of logic leave little room for a god in my opinion.

you can find a good outline of TAG at the CARM website (it won't let me post a link so you will have to google it) if interested, it is too much for me to post here.
Click to expand...

But you, a non believer said god was nothing. I and many others did not.

Your argument is sound, if referenced to the audience you are responding to, but please tell the idiotic Christians who you claim follow this train of thought this, as this is not the case for most of us here.
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Archer said:
But you, a non believer said god was nothing. I and many others did not.

Your argument is sound, if referenced to the audience you are responding to, but please tell the idiotic Christians who you claim follow this train of thought this, as this is not the case for most of us here.
Click to expand...


You see, the thing about the bible is that it gives a nice definition of god, or in the very least gives some testable qualities that god has.

Genesis 18:14 Is any thing too hard for the LORD?
Job 42:1-2 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, I know that thou canst do every thing....
Jeremiah 32:17 Ah Lord God! ... there is nothing too hard for thee.
Jeremiah 32:27 Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for the Lord?;
Matthew 19:26, Mark 10:27 With God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 18:27 The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.
Revelation 19:6 The Lord God omnipotent reigneth.


My argument is for the god who claims omnipotence, perfection or absolute existence (Alpha and omega). If you don't worship this god, then this argument does not apply to you, if you do but your definition is different from the one I gave, maybe you need to go back to bible camp because you don't worship the christian god even if you think you do.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
Two posts and we can examine this. And do realize I did not have a vote in this.

Personally I think there is to much time devoted in the defence of faith and this kind of proves it.


  1. Logical Absolutes
    1. Law of Identity
      1. Something is what it is, and isn't what it is not. Something that exists has a specific nature.
      2. For example, a cloud is a cloud, not a rock. A fish is a fish, not a car.
    2. Law of Non-Contradiction
      1. Something cannot be both true and false at the same time in the same sense.
      2. For example, to say that the cloud is not a cloud would be a contradiction since it would violate the first law. The cloud cannot be what it is and not what it is at the same time.
    3. Law of Excluded Middle (LEM)
      1. A statement is either true or false, without a middle ground.
      2. "I am alive" is either true or false. "You are pregnant" is either true or false.
        1. Note one: "This statement is false" is not a valid statement (not logically true) since it is self-refuting and is dealt with by the Law of Non-contradiction. Therefore, it does not fall under the LEM category since it is a self-contradiction.
        2. Note two: If we were to ignore note one, then there is a possible paradox here. The sentence "this statement is false" does not fit this Law since if it is true, then it is false. Paradoxes occur only when we have absolutes. Nevertheless, the LEM is valid except for the paradoxical statement cited.
        3. Note three: If we again ignore note one and admit a paradox, then we must acknowledge that paradoxes exist only within the realm of absolutes.
  2. Logical absolutes are truth statements such as:
    1. That which exists has attributes and a nature.
      1. A cloud exists and has the attributes of whiteness, vapor, etc. It has the nature of water and air.
      2. A rock is hard, heavy, and is composed of its rock material (granite, marble, sediment, etc.).
    2. Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time.
      1. It cannot be true to state that a rock is not a rock.
    3. Something cannot bring itself into existence.
      1. In order for something to bring itself into existence, it has to have attributes in order to perform an action. But if it has attributes, then it already has existence. If something does not exist, it has no attributes and can perform no actions. Therefore, something cannot bring itself into existence.
    4. Truth is not self-contradictory.
      1. It could not be true that you are reading this and not reading this at the same time in the same sense. It is either true or false that you are reading this.
    5. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are absolutely true. They are not subjectively true; that is, they are not sometimes true and sometimes false, depending on preference or situation. Otherwise, they would not be absolute.
  3. Logical Absolutes form the basis of rational discourse.
    1. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then truth cannot be known.
    2. If the Logical Absolutes are not absolute, then no rational discourse can occur.
      1. For example, I could say that a square is a circle (violating the law of identity), or that I am and am not alive in the same sense at the same time (violating the law of non-contradiction).
      2. But no one would expect to have a rational conversation with someone who spoke in contradictory statements.
    3. If Logical Absolutes are not always true, then it might be true that something can contradict itself, which would make truth unknowable and rational discourse impossible. But, saying that something can contradict itself can't be true.
    4. But since we know things are true (I exist, you are reading this), then we can conclude that logical statements are true. Otherwise, we would not be able to rationally discuss or know truth.
    5. If they are not the basis of rational discourse, then we cannot know truth or error since the laws that govern rationality are not absolute. This would allow people to speak irrationally, i.e., blue sleeps faster than Wednesday.
  4. Logical Absolutes are transcendent.
    1. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on space.
      1. They do not stop being true dependent on location. If we travel a million light years in a direction, logical absolutes are still true.
    2. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on time.
      1. They do not stop being true dependent on time. If we travel a billion years in the future or past, logical absolutes are still true.
    3. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on people. That is, they are not the product of human thinking.
      1. People's minds are different. What one person considers to be absolute may not be what another considers to be absolute. People often contradict each other. Therefore, Logical Absolutes cannot be the product of human, contradictory minds.
      2. If Logical Absolutes were the product of human minds, they would cease to exist if people ceased to exist, which would mean they would be dependent on human minds. But this cannot be so per the previous point.
  5. Logical Absolutes are not dependent on the material world.
    1. Logical Absolutes are not found in atoms, motion, heat, under rocks, etc.
    2. Logical Absolutes cannot be photographed, frozen, weighed, or measured.
    3. Logical Absolutes are not the product of the physical universe, since that would mean they were contingent on atoms, motion, heat, etc., and that their nature was dependent on physical existence.
      1. If their nature were dependent upon physical existence, they would cease to exist when the physical universe ceases to exist.
    4. But, if the universe did not exist, logical absolutes are still true.
      1. For example, if the universe did not exist, it is still true that something cannot bring itself into existence; that is, anything that did exist would have an identity, and whatever could exist could not be itself and not itself at the same time.
      2. Therefore, they are not dependent on the material world.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
  1. Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
    1. Logic is a process of the mind. Logical absolutes provide the framework for logical thought processes. Therefore, Logical Absolutes are conceptual by nature.
    2. Expanded: Logical absolutes are either conceptual by nature or they are not.
      1. If they are conceptual by nature, then they are not dependent upon the physical universe for their existence.
      2. If they are non-conceptual by nature, then:
        1. What is their nature?
        2. If it is denied that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical, then there must be a 3rd (or 4th...) option. What would that option be?
        3. If another option cannot be logically offered, then the only options available to us are conceptual and physical.
        4. Since logic is not a property of physical nature (see point 5 above), then we must conclude that they are conceptual by nature.
        5. Simply "denying" that Logical Absolutes are either conceptual or physical nature isn't sufficient.
  2. Thoughts reflect the mind
    1. A person's thoughts reflect what he or she is.
    2. Absolutely perfect thoughts reflect an absolutely perfect mind.
    3. Since the Logical Absolutes are transcendent, absolute, are perfectly consistent, and are independent of the universe, then they reflect a transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind.
    4. We call this transcendent, absolute, perfect, and independent mind God.
  3. Objections Answered
    1. Logical Absolutes are the result of natural existence.
      1. In what sense are they the result of natural existence? How do conceptual absolutes form as a result of the existence of matter?
    2. Logical Absolutes simply exist.
      1. This is begging the question and does not provide an explanation for their existence. Simply saying they exist is not an answer.
    3. Logical Absolutes are conventions.
      1. A convention, in this context, is an agreed upon principle. But since people differ on what is and is not true, then logical absolutes cannot be the product of human minds, and therefore are not the product of human conventions; that is, of human agreements.
      2. This would mean that logical absolutes were invented upon an agreement by a sufficient number of people. But this would mean that logical absolutes are a product of human minds, which cannot be the case since human minds differ and are often contradictory. Furthermore, the nature of logical absolutes is that they transcend space and time (not dependent on space and time for their validity) and are absolute (they don't change) by nature. Therefore, they could not be the product of human minds which are finite and not absolute.
    4. Logical Absolutes are eternal.
      1. What is meant by stating they are eternal?
      2. If a person says that logical absolutes have always existed, then how is it they could exist without a mind (if the person denies the existence of an absolute and transcendent mind)?
    5. Logical Absolutes are uncaused.
      1. Since the nature of logic is conceptual, and logical absolutes form the framework of this conceptual process known as logic, it would be logical to conclude that the only way logical absolutes could be uncaused is if there was an uncaused and absolute mind authoring them.
    6. Logical Absolutes are self-authenticating.
      1. This means that logical absolutes validate themselves. While this is true, it does not explain their existence.
      2. It is begging the question. It just says they are because they are.
    7. Logical Absolutes are like rules of chess, which are not absolute and transcendent.
      1. The rules of chess are human inventions since Chess is a game invented by people. In fact, the rules of chess have changed over the years, but logical absolutes have not. So, comparing the rules of chess to logical absolutes is invalid.
    8. There are different kinds of logic.
      1. Saying there are different kinds of logic does not explain the existence of logical absolutes.
    9. "Logical absolutes need no transcendental existence: saying 'they would be true even if matter didn't exist' is irrelevant, because we're concerned with their existence, not their logical validity. Saying 'the idea of a car would still exist even if matter didn't exist' doesn't imply that your car is transcendental (reductio ad absurdum)."
      1. Why do logical absolutes need no transcendental existence? Simply saying they don't need a transcendental existence doesn't account for their existence. "Need" deals with desire and wants, which are irrelevant to the discussion of the nature of logical absolutes.
      2. Also, why is it irrelevant to say they would be true even if matter didn't exist? On the contrary, it is precisely relevant to the discussion since we're dealing with the nature of logical absolutes which are conceptual realities, not physical ones.
      3. The illustration that a car would still exist if matter did not exist is illogical. By definition, a car is made of matter and if matter did not exist, a car could not logically exist. By contrast, logical absolutes are not made of matter. The objection is invalid.
    10. "Logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds. They are constructs in our minds (i.e. brains), and we use them to carry out computations via neural networks, silicon networks, etc., suggested by the fact that logic - like language - is learned, not inbuilt (ball's in your court to demonstrate an independent existence, or problem with this)." (...continued in next objection...)
      1. How do you know that logical abstractions do not have existence independent of our minds? Saying so doesn't make it so. This is precisely one of the points about the nature of logical absolutes; namely, that they are a process of the mind, but are not dependent upon human bodies because human minds contradict each other and are also self-contradictory. This would preclude our minds from being the authors of what is logically absolute. Furthermore, if they are constructions of our minds, then all I have to do is claim victory in any argument because that is how I construct my logical abstractions. But, of course, you wouldn't accept this as being valid. Therefore, this demonstrates that your assertion is incorrect.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
  1. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes are absolute, not because of some special quality, but because we judge them using logic. Therefore, their absoluteness doesn't arise from any special ontological quality (category error on your part)."
    1. You are begging the question. You use logic to demonstrate that logical absolutes are absolute. You are not giving a rational reason for their existence. Instead, you assume their existence and argue accordingly.
    2. Furthermore, when you presuppose the validity of logical absolutes to demonstrate they are absolute, you contradict your statement in your previous objection about them being constructs of human minds. They cannot be constructs of human minds, because human minds contradict each other and themselves.
    3. I do not see any category mistake on my part. The nature of logical absolutes is that they are conceptual, not physical. This is something I have brought out before so that their categories do not get mixed. The nature of logical absolutes is exactly relevant to the question.
  2. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical absolutes can be accurately described as conventions in communication. The fact that they are widely employed does not imply anything transcendental, anymore than the wide employment of the word "lolly" as something small and yummy implies that the word "lolly" is transcendental (non sequitor)."
    1. Saying that they are "widely employed does not imply anything transcendental" is inaccurate. Something that is transcendental, as in logical absolutes, would naturally be widely employed because they are valid. You have recognized that they are widely used, but they are because they are transcendent. They do not become transcendent because they are widely used.
    2. This still does not account for the existence of logical absolutes.
  3. (continued from previous objection...) "Logical processes are clearly carried out by material constructs, usually neural or electrical. They do this without any known "input" or "guidance" from anything transcendental, which makes you wonder why anything transcendental is needed in the equation at all (reality check)."
    1. You haven't defined "material construct" or what you mean by neural or electrical (constructs). If you mean a computer or something of that kind, this doesn't help you at all because humans designed them using logic. If you mean that they are the process of the human brain, you still haven't solved the problem of their existence; since the implication would be that if our minds do not exist, logical absolutes would not exist either. But this would mean that logical absolutes were not absolute, but dependent upon human minds. Again, the problem would be that human minds are different and contradict each other. Therefore, logical absolutes, which are not contradictory, cannot be the product of minds that are contradictory.
    2. You don't have to know the input or understand the guidance from anything transcendental for the transcendentals to be true.
  4. "Logic is one of those characteristics that any healthy human 'has.' It's not free to vary from one person to the next for the same kind of reason that 'number of eyes' is a value that doesn't vary between healthy humans."
    1. Saying that logic is something that everyone "has" does not explain its existence. Essentially, this is begging the question, stating that something exists because it exists.
    2. The analogy of "eyes" is a category mistake. Eyes are organs. Different organisms have different kinds of eyes and different numbers of eyes. Logic is consistent and independent of biological structures.
  5. Logic is the result of the semantics of the language which we have chosen: a statement is a theorem of logic if and only if it is valid in all conceivable worlds. If the language is trivalent (true/indetermined/false), tertium non datur is invalid. Uniformity of the universe can be rationally expected in a non-theistic universe. If there is no one around with the transcendental power to change it, why should the behavior of the universe tomorrow differ from its behavior today?
    1. "Semantics of the language." Semantics deals with the study of the meaning of words, their development, changes in meaning, and the interpretation of words, etc. But semantics by nature deals with the changing meaning of words and the often subjective nature of language and its structures. To say the absolutes of logic are a result of the use of the subjective meanings of words is problematic. How do you derive logical absolutes from the non-absolute semantic structures of non-absolute languages?
      Furthermore, simply asserting that logic is a result of the semantics of the language does not explain the transcendent nature of logic. Remember, the TAG argument asserts that Logical Absolutes are independent of human existence -- reasons given at the beginning of the paper. Since language, in this context, is a result of human existence, the argument would suggest that logic came into existence when language came into existence. But this would invalidate the nature of logical absolutes and their transcendent characteristics. Therefore, this objection is invalid.
    2. If logic is the result of language, then logic came into existence with language. This cannot be for the reasons stated above.
    3. If logic is the result of language, and since language rules change, then can we conclude that the laws of logic would also change? If so, then the laws of logic are not laws, they are not absolute.
    4. Saying that "a statement is a theorem of logic" does not account for logic, but presupposes existence of logic. This is begging the question.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
And after seeing this headache it is not hard to see the problem!!!! Faith does not need justification and that is the problem.

I believe because I must believe I have no choice. I need prove nothing, I need no evidence or documentation, I only need affirmation in my daily life. Paul warned of these things as the non-believer can see through those who seek justification where none is needed and find the lack of faith that those who come up with psycobable are showing.
 
Last edited:
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Archer said:
And after seeing this headache it is not hard to see the problem!!!! Faith does not need justification and that is the problem.

I believe because I must believe I have no choice. I need prove nothing, I need no evidence or documentation, I only need affirmation in my daily life.
Click to expand...


You are right on both counts, it is a headache. Fortunately for me I really like logic puzzles, so when I found this argument I was in heaven;).

Unfortunately for you, even though you are right and need no documentation for your faith, the founders of your faith saw fit to display some documentation anyways. And the argument I offered is completely valid for their idea of a god, and if you are christian, you are put into the position of having to accept their idea of god as correct, or accept that they are wrong and god didn't inspire the bible.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
These IDIOTS have a lot to learn and going only by what is stated above you are correct in your conclusions!!! I am glad they don't speak for me.

The Bible contains absolute truth, though all of the Bible can not be proven, there are enough irrefutable historical facts to lean toward the Bible being true to it's origins.

NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THE HEBREW SLAVES BUILT THE PYRAMIDS!!!! big misconception on the part of believers.

The world was folded (the world they knew). The specifications for the Ark are actually used today.

Many truths are in the Bible and many misconceptions are made about the Bible as well as outright lies told about what things mean in the Bible.

Ask a scholar the truth about tithing??? They will most likley tell a lie and say you are to give a tenth, which is a fallacy, but that is for another thread.
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
Archer said:
These IDIOTS have a lot to learn and going only by what is stated above you are correct in your conclusions!!! I am glad they don't speak for me.

The Bible contains absolute truth, though all of the Bible can not be proven, there are enough irrefutable historical facts to lean toward the Bible being true to it's origins.

NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE DOES IT SAY THE HEBREW SLAVES BUILT THE PYRAMIDS!!!! big misconception on the part of believers.

The world was folded (the world they knew). The specifications for the Ark are actually used today.

Many truths are in the Bible and many misconceptions are made about the Bible as well as outright lies told about what things mean in the Bible.

Ask a scholar the truth about tithing??? They will most likley tell a lie and say you are to give a tenth, which is a fallacy, but that is for another thread.
Click to expand...



I don't want to beat you down any more, but I could talk for hours on the claims you make in this post alone, but like you say, that is for another thread.


One thing though because I can't resist. On the ark, 300 cubits = 500ft, 50 cubits = 83 ft, an 30 cubits = 50 ft. This is not a sea worthy wooden ship capable of holding millions of animals. No intelligent engineer would design this. The bracing required to keep the ship together would be enough to sink it.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
The book of Genesis in The Bible provides us with a straightforward and trustworthy historical account of the profound events of Noah's Flood. Here we find that the fanciful accretions of other Flood traditions are conspicuously lacking. Take, for instance, the dimensions of the Ark given in Genesis chapter 6 verse 15:

  • `And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.'
There is some degree of doubt regarding the precise length of the Biblical cubit, although most scholars seem to favour a length of around 1.5 feet (18 inches). Assuming the cubit to have been 1.5 feet, the Biblical Ark would have been 45 feet high, 75 feet in width, and 450 feet in length. Giannone (1975) has shown that the ratios of these dimensions are comparable with those of modern ships. In striking contrast to the cubic ark of the Babylonian Flood legend, the Biblical dimensions describe a structure of exceptional stability in water.

All the animals that were in danger (regional animals) think Gilgamesh.
Preliminary calculations regarding the stability of the Ark were performed by Dr Henry Morris (1971). Additional work by a naval architect, David Collins (1977), has built on these calculations by taking into account the adverse weather conditions which the Ark would have encountered. To estimate the stability of the Ark, one must first determine its draft. The draft is the height that the water comes to along the side of the vessel, measured from its bottom. Dr Morris' calculations assumed a draft of 15 cubits (22.5 feet), which was the depth of the Flood waters over the highest mountains The Bible (Genesis chapter 7 verse 20). However, Collins calculated the draft by estimating the weight of the Ark - for which he gives a figure of 7240 long tons [1]. From this, he estimated that the centre of weight would have been approximately 18.5 feet above the bottom of the Ark, and he derived a draft of 7.5 feet. A smaller draft gives a less stable vessel, and Collins points out that in ship design it is standard practice to adopt the lower estimate.
Using these assumptions, Collins looked at four important features of stability, in order to see whether the Ark would have been stable when subjected to upsetting forces such as wind and waves. Since the distance from the waterline to the bottom of the door was quite large in Noah's Ark, and because it had a relatively low centre of gravity, the primary capsizing force would have been the wind. Collins found that even in 210 knot winds - three times hurricane force - the Ark was extremely stable when his four major stability features were examined. These features were as follows:

  1. The angle of steady heel under the influence of the forceacting to overturn the ship
  2. Heel is the action of tipping sideways from an upright position. In this respect, the Ark proved to be better than most modern ships.
  3. The range of positive stability
  4. This demonstrates how far the Ark could roll without capsizing. Again, the Ark proved to be superior to modern shipping.
  5. The residual dynamic stability
  6. This represents the work required, in addition to the effects of the overturning moment2, to capsize the vessel. The Ark proved to be far in excess of the minimum stability requirements.
  7. The relative magnitudes of the maximum moment to right theship and the moment to overturn it
  8. This is essentially a safety factor, taking into account any minor variations in the assumptions, such as weight, draft, or centre of weight. Collins shows that the Ark had a more than sufficient margin between the maximum righting moment and the maximum overturning moment.
Collins concluded from his calculations that `Noah's Ark was extremely stable, more stable, in fact, than modern shipping. This is primarily because in modern shipping the extra margin of stability is sacrificed for attaining higher speed and more maneuverability' (p.86). These mathematical studies show that the Biblical account of the Flood is a reasonable one, and act to confirm our faith in the veracity of the Scriptural record. Paul Garner (1994)
FOOTNOTES

1. A long ton is a unit of mass equal to 2240 pounds or 1016 kilogram (approx).
2. Moment is a measure of the tendency to produce rotation, especially about a point or axis.
REFERENCES

Collins, D.H. 1977. Was Noah's Ark stable? Creation Research Society Quarterly14:83-7.
Giannone, R. 1975. A comparison of the Ark with modern ships. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 12:53.
Morris, H.M. 1971. The Ark of Noah. Creation Research Society Quarterly. 8:142-4.
 
Last edited:
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate

The Oliver Hazard Perry class frigates were designed by the United States Navy in the 1970s as general-purpose escort vessels capable enough to do most jobs adequately, yet inexpensive enough to be bought in quantities sufficient to replace the aging fleet of modernized World War II destroyers which had up to that time been doing the same jobs much less adequately. Although costs escalated dramatically over the production run, all 50 ships planned for the USN were eventually built, plus additional units for and by other nations. Today many Perrys are being decommissioned and transferred to other navies, where they are often replacing modernized World War II destroyers again - the same ex-US destroyers transferred abroad in the 1970s and 1980s. However, some members of the class are expected to remain in USN service for years to come.
Perrys made the news twice during the 1980s. The Persian Gulf was a dangerous place to be during the Iran-Iraq War, and on 17 May 1987 USS Stark (FFG-31) was attacked, apparently accidentally, by an Iraqi warplane. Thirty-seven American sailors were killed. Partly in response to this incident, the US launched Operation Earnest Will, the reflagging and escorting of oil tankers through the Persian Gulf. Less than a year later, on 14 April 1988, USS Samuel B. Roberts (FFG-58) was nearly sunk by an Iranian mine. Fortunately, no lives were lost. The US retaliated a few days later with Operation Praying Mantis, a two-day attack on Iranian facilities then being used as bases for raids on merchant shipping, which included the minelaying operations that damaged Samuel B. Roberts. Both frigates survived the attacks and were eventually returned to service.

Table of contents [showhide]
1 General characteristics
2 Ships
2.1 US-built units
2.2 Australian-built units
2.3 Spanish-built units
2.4 Taiwanese-built units



General characteristics


  • Dimensions
    • length overall - 445 feet (455 feet for "long-hull" units)
    • length waterline - 408 feet
    • beam - 45 feet
    • draft - 22 feet
    • displacement - 4000 tons
  • Armament
    • one single-arm Mark 13 missile launcher; magazine capacity 40 rounds (SM-1MR and Harpoon, loadout dependent upon mission)
    • two triple Mark 32 ASW torpedo tubes with Mark 46 or Mark 50 torpedoes
    • one single OTO-Melara 76mm gun
    • one 20mm Phalanx CIWS
    • eight Hsiung Feng II SSM (Taiwanese units only)
    • one or two helicopters
 
The Neo Nerd

The Neo Nerd

Well-Known Member
emiliano said:
Ah! You read the book? Now, how is it that you come with this?
Click to expand...


I don't understand the question, could you please rephrase it for me.
emiliano said:
Do you think that God’s kingdom would lack any goodness without you in it?
Click to expand...


I did not say this. This is an assumption on your behalf of the meaning behind what i said.

Craiky
Click to expand...

I don't know this word, was it a typo.
I am confronted by the spokesman of the Godless and Christian, the holder of the universal truth. I don’t think that it is possible to put anything else in your mouth because it is too full of yourself for that to happen.
Click to expand...


You are indeed correct i will endeavour to give only my opinions from now on.

My opinion on the subject is that it is rude of you to try and force your beliefs on to me. This is especially hurtful to me since:
emiliano said:
If God does not draws you to the savior, the door to his Kingdom is because He does not want you in it
Click to expand...


It is not my fault that god hasn't chosen me, and you rubbing my face in it smacks of a complete lack of compassion (which i believe is one of the chief virtues of christianity).

A student of the human mind
Click to expand...
Yes i am currently studying a degree in applied social sciences, so this definitely qualifies me as a student of the human mind.

and you base this study on your cousin’s experience? So how does this logic argument goes? My cousin’s parents did that, therefore all Christians parents do it
Click to expand...

I thought you would come back at me with this argument so i included this in my post:
Quaxotic said:
And as a student of the human mind i have read lots of case studies on such behaviour.
Click to expand...


One of my modules from last semester was developmental psych. In one of the classes we talked about children having imaginary friends. The similarities between such imaginary friends and belief in a god form led me to research the issue further. Hence the mention of the case studies.

It should be noted that i never EVER mentioned christian parents, that was an assumption.
I assume that your cousin’s parents are Christians and that was what compelled them to do such an act and that you have proved that all Christians parent are presently ( in this century) doing it. :areyoucra
Click to expand...


What i actually meant was parents in general with no bias towards religious beliefs.
I too have and interest in the human mind, a very amateur one but an interest none the less, can you tell me, do you think that logic is a method of finding truth? In my little experience a logical argument is one the is organized in a way that make sense
Click to expand...

Would i be correct in assuming that you meant to finish this sentence with "to that person".

If this is indeed the case i would be in violent agreement, which is why i have issues with people using logic to prove the existence of a deity. Logic is malleable i am a chaote i could ramble on and on about how logic is completely subjective. If you would like we could discuss the pitfalls of logic in another thread, but don't expect an argument because im pretty sure i'll agree with you.
thus if person tells you of his experience on the encounter that he had/felt with his God, a spirit and because he has this (faith) he know, he has done a good job of it,
Click to expand...

Could you please reword this sentence i think i know what you are trying to say but i would like to clarify it before responding.

the problem here is that the OP is challenging a super natural belief with natural laws and that is impossible and cannot proof of disprove anything as you provably already work out.
Click to expand...


Once again i'm in agreement with you.

I understand that i am challenging your deeply help beliefs and i apologise if i have upset you. I will endeavour to be less 'douchie' in my posts as i think you and i can have some interesting discussions.

Thankyou,

-Q


 
Last edited:
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
I'm sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges, a wooden ship that size, even a wooden ship with steel bracing would be barely see worthy, it definitely wouldn't withstand the weather to flood the earth, and this is if it is empty, with animals and food for the voyage it would straight up sink. A ship that size can displace 45000 tons, it would need to support 66000 tons for food alone.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
freethinker44 said:
I'm sorry but you are comparing apples to oranges, a wooden ship that size, even a wooden ship with steel bracing would be barely see worthy, it definitely wouldn't withstand the weather to flood the earth, and this is if it is empty, with animals and food for the voyage it would straight up sink. A ship that size can displace 45000 tons, it would need to support 66000 tons for food alone.
Click to expand...

All of the experts say it is very sea worthy!! As a matter of fact you are the first person I have ever heard say it would not float.
 
F

freethinker44

Well-Known Member
We can talk about aircraft carriers and anything else all day, I will even help you out, a super tanker can haul 550,000 pounds of dead weight and is over 1000 feet long. If it were built out of wood it would sink under its own design.
 
Last edited:
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
I say it would float, you say no! so what. I am sure we can both find substance to back ourselves up as I have I am also sure you have, so this point is moot.
 
A

Archer

Well-Known Member
Let us move on to something else. You are correct in your assessment of the original topic as they seem to be trying to prove something to themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top