Value of Pi (to Achilles)

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

In a message dated 11/1/98 12:46:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, Kornform@aol.com
writes:

<< Just as it is impossible that a circular object have a diameter or 10 and a
 circumference of 30, it is as impossible that a dead body be raised from the
 dead. >>
CHARLIE
If all approximate measurements require the word "approximately" then what is
the purpose of the word "exactly", and in "It is impossible that a circular
object have a diameter of exactly 10 and a circumference of exactly 30."  Note
that locutions of this type do occur in speech, just so the reader will not
get the legitimate impression that approximate measures are being used.  Joe's
point, which I also have stated, is that even saying a bowl has diameter 10
and circumference 3.14 would be erroneous if "approximately" needs to be added
to all approximate measurements.

I think Bryce's point from another post is pertinent in this regard:
<<
BRYCE
     Actually, Achilles isn't entirely correct here.  On several
occasions, in arguments with liberals, I've tried to make the case
that the only way they can trust the Bible is if they believe the
inerrancy doctrine (I believe this can be argued effectively).  Then I
try to show that the inerrancy doctrine is absurd.  So far, results
are mixed.  It's risky, and it is possible to end up committing a
bifurcation fallacy ("excluded middle," though "bifurcation" is more
fun to say).  Any comments on whether this tactic is appropriate?

>>

CHARLIE
In one sense, it is necessary to consider something inerrant in order to trust
it.  However the level of innerancy demanded here is something not even
reliable descriptions in current newspapers achieve.  If my world atlas says
that the earth's equatorial diameter is 7927.68 miles, do I say they need to
add the word "approximately" in order to trust it on all other things?  If
more refined measurements show the actual value to be say 7927.6832 miles, is
that proof that the world atlas is valueless?

The point is, that there is a sense in which inerrancy is needed, so that the
liberal christian can be shown that there is no real basis for christianity,
because the bible really *is* unreliable.  But to demand this degree of
inerrancy is absurd.  That Jesus said he'd return in his listeners' lifetime,
but didn't, destroys the whole idea of Jesus' divinity.  That the bible calls
a 9.55-cubit diameter, 30-cubit circumference bowl 10 cubits in diameter, is
no big deal by comparison.

By the way, as there are indeed inerrantists on this list, why can't we ask
them if they think pi is exactly 3?  What is the inerrantist answer to the
claim of this implication?  I had thought it was that God in fact was using
the approximate language of humans.  Do we know that this is not in fact their
belief?

• Previous message: Value of Pi (to Achilles)
• Next message: Value of Pi (to Achilles)
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]