The Instigator
mongeese
Con (against)
Losing
22 Points
The Contender
bigtree
Pro (for)
Winning
33 Points

According to the Bible, the value of pi is only known to one digit.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2009 Category: Science
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 6,347 times Debate No: 10575
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (51)
Votes (10)

 

mongeese

Con

The Bible is the Christian holy text.

Pi is the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference.

By "only known to one digit," I mean that the Bible shows that the Christian author evidently only knew pi to one digit, 3.

My opponent will have the burden of proof to explain where the evidence exists to affirm the resolution, and how it does so.

Good luck to my future opponent.
bigtree

Pro

I thank mongeese for this debate.

I would like to start by stating that the Bible was not written by a single person. There were multiple authors who wrote it. [1] If we accept mongeese's terms, that means that "According to the Christian holy text, the value of the ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is only known to one digit". By "only known to one digit," mongeese means that the Bible shows that *the Christian author* evidently only knew pi to one digit, 3. "The Christian author" seems to be referring to a singular person who wrote the bible, judging by the use of the singular word "author". That being said, this resolution is impossible considering there are many authors and I do not know to which author the resolution is referring. Therefore, the resolution is void.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 1
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate.

Now, my opponent makes an attempt to "void" the resolution. However, a "voided" resolution would not be considered affirmed, but rather, negated. Therefore, this introduction of a potential voiding cannot help my opponent's case.

However, I don't actually want the resolution to be void. I want to actually debate.

The Bible was written by many authors, yes. However, each author wrote a specific portion of the Bible, and therefore, a specific text of the Bible from which pi could possibly be extrapolated would be written by one Christian author. In effect, my opponent can choose any of multiple authors.

I now hope to see an argument that can affirm the resolution, rather than void it.
bigtree

Pro

Thanks mongeese for a good argument.

Alright then. I'll try my best!

According to the Bible, in [I Kings 7:23], the value of pi is 3. It says that Solomon's temple is "ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, . . . and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about".
Simple mathematics follow:

Since in a circle circumference (the distance around a circle) is equal to the diameter (the distance across a circle) times the value of pi, we can use substitution to solve for the Bible's pi.

C=(pi)*D, where C=Circumference and D=Diameter
Now we sub in values:
(30 cubits)=(pi)*(10 cubits)
and therefore,
pi=(30 cubits)/(10 cubits)
pi=30/10
pi=3

And voila! pi is equivalent to 3 according to the bible!
Debate Round No. 2
mongeese

Con

I would like to thank bigtree for his attempt to affirm the resolution.

Now, I would like to take this opportunity to teach my opponent and all voters who are unaware of this concept about significant figures, also known as sig figs.

http://www.fordhamprep.org...

Significant figures are used to approximate measurements so that they are not horribly incorrect. For example, if you had one string length measured to exactly a centimeter long and another string measured to a length of approximately a kilometer, maybe more, maybe less, then instead of saying that their combined length is 1000.01 km, you would say that their combined length is 1000 km, because the longer piece's length is only approximated, and a result cannot be more precise than the least precise measurement used.

For multiplication, the number of sig figs in the solution is equal to the minimum of the sig figs in the two numbers multiplied together. For example, let's take a largely approximated measure of thirty cubits (one significant figure) as the circumference of a vessel. Let's also take pi. Pi's value could be considered 3, 3.14, 3.1415, 3.14159265, whatever.

30 / 3 = 10 (1 sig fig)
30 / 3.14 = 9.55 (3 sig figs) -> 10 (1 sig fig)
30 / 3.1415 = 9.5500 (4 sig figs) = 10 (1 sig fig)
And so on...

The point is, the known value of pi at the time of the writing of I Kings cannot be determined from the circumference and calculated diameter. (It could be the diameter and calculated circumference, but that's irrelevant.) All that we can discover is that pi is approximately three, which is it. They might have known pi to one digit, they might have known pi to three digits, we don't know. Therefore, the resolution is negated. Vote CON.

Again, I would like to thank bigtree for this debate. Good luck in future debates!
bigtree

Pro

I thank my opponent for his argument. I am typing this on an iPod (sadly). I will have to keep it short. Anyways, if my opponent knows about significant digits (let's call them sig figs),he should know that sig figs are measured by the number of sig figs in the source numbers,in this case 10 and 30. All non-zero numbers and trailing zeros are counted as sig figs. That means that the value of pi should also have 2 digits. So, pi should be 3.1 at least, if sig figs are to be counted. My source for all info about sig figs is http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
51 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
Yeah, but they don;t always get it empirically. It says it nowhere tbh.

Anyways, my RFD:

Agree Before/After: Me, naturally.
Better conduct: Me, I didn't make a big deal after the debate, nor did I support rude comments towards my opponent.
Spelling and grammar: woops, I guess I'll fix that one. Tied.
Convincing arguments: Me, I was right all along.
Reliable sources: Me, you had one source.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
An RFD would still be nice.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
People get measurements through empirical observation.

An RFD would be nice, yes.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
Look, who says the bible ever uses empirical observation? It doens't say that anywhere.

And I believe I gave 7 points whee 7 points are due. I will gladly explain if you would like.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Emperical observation implies approxomation.

Giving seven points where seven points is not due is vote abuse.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
And why would you say that the bible isn't using those definitions?

Really? I don't see how it would be vote abuse.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Those would be the "common speaking" definitions.

http://www.ddofans.com...
Okay, I guess it wouldn't fall under vote-bombing, but vote abuse.
Posted by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
Is: Third person singular present indicative of be. (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
Be: To exist in actuality; have life or reality (http://www.thefreedictionary.com...)
There we go.

And what does vote bombing mean?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Oh, yeah, and @ both of you: why do you vote-bomb?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
@ dpflames: No, mongoose is my twin. Seriously.

@ bigtree: "Is" has rather different meanings in common speaking and emperical measurement.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by bigtree 7 years ago
bigtree
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by dpflames786 7 years ago
dpflames786
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by nickthengineer 7 years ago
nickthengineer
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rulerof52 7 years ago
Rulerof52
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Danielle 7 years ago
Danielle
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 years ago
Lexicaholic
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 7 years ago
RoyLatham
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
mongeesebigtreeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30