Infallability of the written Word (i.e. Bible)

wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Infallability of the written Word (i.e. Bible)

I have been working on a 'proof' that the Bible cannot be the perfect expression of God's Word. Seeing as I am a theist, I suspect this will become known as the Bob Heresy and I'm going to hell, but oh well. I would also be surprised that this argument has not been offerd up previously.

1) God is infinite

2) Written languages are composed of a finite set of symbols combined to represent various concepts

3) Any finite set of symbols for any written language  can only represent a finite set of concepts

4) You  cannot fully describe something infinite being with a finite set of concepts

5) The Bible is a finite set of symbols

6) The Bible cannot fully define an infinite God

I would like to tighten this up. Can anyone assist me in doing so? Can anyone direct me to similar 'proofs'?


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm...I think that the

Hmmm...
I think that the Christian would retort that the Bible isn't supposed to define God but is infallible in what it is supposed to do - tells us what God wants us to know.

It's difficult for me to use arguments involving God as I think the word is meaningless in this context. (that doesn't mean that the word God is meaningless in all contexts - see non-cognitivism)


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Strafio wrote: Hmmm...I

Strafio wrote:
Hmmm...
I think that the Christian would retort that the Bible isn't supposed to define God but is infallible in what it is supposed to do - tells us what God wants us to know.

 

Part of the "Bible is God's Word" thinking also states that there can be no additions to it. It is essentially complete. Basically, it is not only what God wants us to know, but also all that we are going to be told.


ajay333
Theist
ajay333's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
wavefreak wrote: I have

wavefreak wrote:

I have been working on a 'proof' that the Bible cannot be the perfect expression of God's Word. Seeing as I am a theist, I suspect this will become known as the Bob Heresy and I'm going to hell, but oh well. I would also be surprised that this argument has not been offerd up previously.

1) God is infinite

True!

Quote:

2) Written languages are composed of a finite set of symbols combined to represent various concepts

Agreed

Quote:

3) Any finite set of symbols for any written language can only represent a finite set of concepts

Don't agree. (See explanation at the bottom)

Quote:

4) You cannot fully describe something infinite being with a finite set of concepts

Don't agree. (See explanation at the bottom)

Quote:

5) The Bible is a finite set of symbols

If you treat is like any other 'book' yes, but it is unlike any other book. It is the 'Living Word of God' that means it is dynamic, and God speaks to you through it.

Quote:

6) The Bible cannot fully define an infinite God

Don't agree. (See explanation at the bottom)

Quote:

I would like to tighten this up. Can anyone assist me in doing so? Can anyone direct me to similar 'proofs'?

 

How does a INFINITE God commiunicate a 'infinite concept' to a finite being?

ANS: Using analogies (Biblical parables)

Is Bible all parables?

ANS: No! It is simple statements at times but some statements seem cryptic. Each Bible verse is like a treasure chest, you need a key to unlock and understand and be edified by it. This is what makes it unique (unlike any other book) THE LIVING WORD of GOD. And who gives you these keys? GOD himself! as you pray and request Him. Even the seemingly simple statements have profound meanings to them and to understand the TRUE ESSENCE of what these verses mean you need to simply ask GOD for the keys! And when you hear GOD talking to you through the Bible it will bring a TRUE JOY that you never experienced before.

What about the different interpretions of the same verse?

ANS: This happens only if you treat it like any other book and try to interpret it with human knowledge and techniques. Follow the above method and the message is ALWAYS Consistent. And it has been the 'same' through over 2000 years! and as preached and understood by all the true believers whose numbers run into billions! through ages. And such consistency can be only maintained by GOD. 

 

 

 


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
How does a INFINITE God

How does a INFINITE God commiunicate a 'infinite concept' to a finite being?

He cant communicate at all. This is what I wrote in the essay called The Matter/Information Conjecture, where i said:

 

We measure sentience in a unit called SQ or sentience quotient based on efficiency of sentience measured in calculations/s relative to mass of calculating unit. (In humans this is chemical neurotransmissions per neuron over mass of neuron). In this way, we can calculate the sentience of anything. God is described as maximally intelligent, the ultimate entity? What does this mean? There are constraints on this placed by the Law of conservation of energy. If God is the ultimate sentience, then this entity would harness all the energy in the universe with the maximum efficiently (defined as the minimum energy required for one bit of information). The upper limit given to us is 50. An SQ of 50. Humans have an SQ of roughly 13. This scale, by the way, is logarithmic, not linear. Such is the vast difference in speed perception, computational rates and intelligence that any meaningful attempt God made to communicate with us would be totally impossible, therefore making notions like Revelation and divine prophecy flat out impossible.

And of course, if an SQ 50 entity existed, we would not exist because this entity would harness the entire universe. Let me go into the impossibility of communication in more detail. The scale proceeds in Orders of Magnitude. Imagine that I sat down next to a potted plant and attempted to explain to it how the Boltzmann equations regarding ideal gas laws relate to quantum dynamics. Is this absurd? A potted plant has an SQ of 1. This means that ours outclasses it by 13 Orders of Magnitude. The God entity, presumably to fit the definition, would outclass ours by something like 40 Orders of magnitude. This is somewhat equivalent of....well, nothing really. The magnitude of absurdity is so high that there is no analogy to do it justice. I suppose one could imagine giving this lecture to an oxygen molecule to gain some appreciation of it.

We could conclude God is not infinte. Sorry, that's impossible. , such a structure could exist at all without breaking the laws of thermodynamics. It could not sustain itself (there would be no free energy drive to generate the information gradient. Think of it like a skyscraper which is growing taller. Eventually, it will just collapse). 

If the Sentience of the God entity outclassed ours by the given forty orders of magnitude, that is also expressed as 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times in computational power speed. Have you ever tried communicating with your garden shrubs? No? Good. People will think you're insane. This is the same principle except a lot worse, as in exactly 10^37 times worse. 

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Actually, your argument is

Actually, your argument is broken.

A language with finite number of symbols does not necessarily represent a finite set of concepts. It can only represent a finite number of semantic labels at any given time, but it evolves over time, and volume of information is not measured by vocabulary, but by volume of text, factor in redundancy, clarity and such scientific friends. In other words, it is not theoretically impossible to write an infinitely long book in Klingon that describes absolutely everything.

Thus, it is practical concerns (human life span; attention span; effort) and not theoretical limitations of language that prevent an infinite description of something. Which means that Bible can not perfectly describe God, just barely enough to allow people to think it has.

By the way, when transgression from infinite to finite occurs, inevitable reduction follows. In other words, you can not understand god unless you are god (assuming god is infinite). You can only understand god in terms that your mind comprehends; you would not be able to memorize the distance to closest star expressed in inches; you have to reduce the concept and lose precision. 

BTW, that's why Flying Spaghetti Monster is the best god ever. He's really easy to understand and visualize. 

 


Sir Valiant for...
Theist
Sir Valiant for Truth's picture
Posts: 156
Joined: 2007-04-23
User is offlineOffline
OK Assume God (in other

OK Assume God (in other words, atheists BUG OFF, I am going to answer the post and ignore whatever you say.)

First off, the Bible never claims anywhere to be a full exposition of all that is God, so the Bible agrees with your conclusion.

Secondly, I will agree that the present Bible has been translated and worked on by hands that were not divinely inspired. The question I am adressing is not wheter or not the present scripture is 100% God Breathed, but rather if the original was. 

1. God is infinite

2. Human language is finite

3. Therefore God's power cannot be limited by human language in expressing Himself or his thoughts.

 

You forget that God being Omnipotent also means that He literally controlls what a person thinks. So he could take an imperfect wording in an imperfect scripture, and refine it between the reading and the comprehension into a perfect idea. What you are trying to do here litterally boils down to trying to put God in a box. 

"Truth is the cry of all, but the game of the few." George Berkeley
"Truth is always strange — stranger than fiction." Lord Byron

Fixing the world, one dumb idea at a time.


ajay333
Theist
ajay333's picture
Posts: 66
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Sir Valiant for Truth

Sir Valiant for Truth wrote:
..

You forget that God being Omnipotent also means that He literally controlls what a person thinks. So he could take an imperfect wording in an imperfect scripture, and refine it between the reading and the comprehension into a perfect idea. What you are trying to do here litterally boils down to trying to put God in a box.

 

1.God does't control what a person thinks. The simple reason for this that He gave humans FREE-WILL to choose. This free-will can be genuine/authentic ONLY if He doesn't doesn't control any aspect of this free-will.

2.If you (a finite being) can understand and comprehend God a INFINITE being in His entirity He will not be a God any more. But from the little that you know of Him you are edified (experience Great! joy) and that it why you keep seeking to understand Him more and more every day, which is the way He want's us to live our lives in this world.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ajay333 wrote: Quote: 3)

ajay333 wrote:

Quote:

3) Any finite set of symbols for any written language can only represent a finite set of concepts

Don't agree. (See explanation at the bottom)

 

You can't dismiss this one. Here's an artificial example. Let's say some strange culture somewhare has an alphabet with two symbols A and B. Now they don't talk a lot and so far have words with only one or two letters. So their entire vocabulary only consists of the words A, B, AA, AB, BA and BB. Each word represents a single concept A= God, B=Satan, AA= Heaven, AB= Hell, BA= Man, and BB= Woman. This is a finite set of symbols and it represents a finite set of concepts. The expressiveness of this set of symbols is restricted to the point where you CAN'T express and idea like "BA and BB that follow A go to AA, BA and BB the follow B go to AB. The symbol set has no representation for follow, go, to, and, and that. 

 

With some additional work, this can be extended to any finite symbol set. The bible is a finite symbol set and so has a limit to its expressiveness.


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Your conclusion is correct,

Your conclusion is correct, and your premise is faulty. Despite the fact that human languages tend to limit the length of words, and in genetic programming/NLP size of the vocabulary is often fixed, that does not mean a language consisting entirely of As and Bs can not produce an arbitrarily long combination of As and Bs that labels a particular concept.

Again, you are lumping together word sizes, vocabulary sizes, and text sizes. 


Rave
Posts: 114
Joined: 2007-03-02
User is offlineOffline
I get what point you're

I get what point you're trying to convey, wavefreak, and I think it's a good point to be making. Unfortunately I think it will take alot of effort and testing to make it stand up to the considerable opposition you will get from the people you will try to convince. Perhaps if you tried to simplify it down to just a couple of sentences it would be easier for people to digest, and harder to rebuke. I'm not too hot on this sort of stuff but I'm sure if you ask nicely enough there will be plenty of people here to help you come up with a good way of presenting the argument. Good luck!

"This is the real world, stupid." - Charlie Brooker

"It is necessary to be bold. Some people can be reasoned into sense, and others must be shocked into it. Say a bold thing that will stagger them, and they will begin to think." - Thomas Paine


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Mike Seth wrote: Your

Mike Seth wrote:

Your conclusion is correct, and your premise is faulty. Despite the fact that human languages tend to limit the length of words, and in genetic programming/NLP size of the vocabulary is often fixed, that does not mean a language consisting entirely of As and Bs can not produce an arbitrarily long combination of As and Bs that labels a particular concept.

Again, you are lumping together word sizes, vocabulary sizes, and text sizes.

 

Agreed. So far this is just a sketch of an idea. But even if you extend this to words, a 'super bible' with a billion words would take over six years to read at 300 words per minute, 24/7. No matter how detailed, a language based description of anything is finite.

 

How can I adjust my premise to make it better? 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Rave wrote: I get what

Rave wrote:
I get what point you're trying to convey, wavefreak, and I think it's a good point to be making. Unfortunately I think it will take alot of effort and testing to make it stand up to the considerable opposition you will get from the people you will try to convince. Perhaps if you tried to simplify it down to just a couple of sentences it would be easier for people to digest, and harder to rebuke. I'm not too hot on this sort of stuff but I'm sure if you ask nicely enough there will be plenty of people here to help you come up with a good way of presenting the argument. Good luck!

 

Yeah. It's not a 5 minute project. I've been twiddling this in my mind for years. Every once in awhile I wonder if I could formalize it. I'm patient enough to twiddle with it for a few more years. This seems like a good place to sharpen it up. As for the resistance I meet, I tend to not care too much. I can sleep just fine at night. 


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Exclude the whole linguistic

Exclude the whole linguistic determinism and simply say that infinitely complex knowledge can not be represented finitely without reduction.


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Mike Seth wrote: Exclude

Mike Seth wrote:
Exclude the whole linguistic determinism and simply say that infinitely complex knowledge can not be represented finitely without reduction.

 

This approach would require those that deify the bible to make the logical connection. I doubt that connection will be made without making it an explicit argument. Can you direct me to some resources on linguistic determinism? 

 

 


Mike Seth
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, that'll be the

Yeah, that'll be the day.

 Either way Wikipedia is your friend.