The Value of Pi (to Kornform)

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

JOE 

> I read it n times.  I have said before:  the words "about" or

"approximately"

> show inexactness, and the god of which we speak cannot be inexact; 

he has the

> infinite ability to find the way to convey to us exact information

in an

> infinitely efficient way.


BRYCE
     <silly quibble>I would argue with your use of the phrase
"infinitely efficient."  If efficiency means the ability to do a
maximum of work with a minimum of progress, then infinite efficiency
means the ability to do everything with nothing.  While this may
indeed reflect the conception of the Christian God, it would be
logically impossible for God to do so in a written language, unless
all the knowledge in the universe can be held on a blank sheet of
paper.</silly quibble>  Sorry, but I just can't resist jumping all
over the slightest linguistical slip up.

     So, point taken, God should be able to convey a maximum of
relevant information with a minimum of wordage.  I agree that this
makes logical sense.  However, it would still be impossible for God to
give a perfectly exact shape for the sea in the space of a paragraph. 
Human language wouldn't allow for it (or possibly information theory
itself).  

     Achilles, myself, and others continue to argue that using the
word "about" (or some other, similar term) would have led to a passage
that couldn't be argued with.  You appear to believe that, if this God
was in complete control of the human author, and choosing every word
written, he would necessarily have to give a perfectly exact
description of the shape of the sea, or leave the description out
entirely.  I think it could be argued that even an omnipotent God
could, using Hebrew or Engish language, give an exact description of
such a tub in the space of a paragraph.  Therefore, God would be bound
by a "logistical impossibility" to round off somewhere and use the
word "about."*  

     Using the word "about" would also end the question of how much
exactness was required.  Though an exact description of the sea isn't
required for the perfect communication of "God's message", freedom
from any true error (as well as the appearance of error, where such is
possible) is necessary for the success of the inerrancy hypothesis.




*On the other hand, it is possible that, if the sea were a very
idealized shape, that mathematical equations could provide a perfect
description in a very short space, but this leads to a problem of
conveyance, since I haven't studied my geometry in years. 


==
Bryce Anderson
http://members.tripod.com/~Idafab/index.html

Eagles can soar, but weasels don't get 
sucked into jet engines.

Isn't Disney World a people trap run by a mouse?
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

• Previous message: The Value of Pi (to Kornform)
• Next message: Just for a Chuckle
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]