The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation
Presented is the original Latin Text of the Bible, of which the English translation (NAB) is based, and finally the math.
The Preachatician begins with a magnitude, which is equivalent to an expression with the same amount of subjects as the original words.
Then, by rewriting the same magnitude incorporates the physical constant of light into the expression together with the verse in which God created the light.
The constant which symbolizes darkness is removed from the expression together with the verse in which God separates the darkness from light.
The magnitude of evening, so-called, is accurate throughout every evening.
That the magnitude becomes the radius of the dome is an accurate interpretation based on the fact that the subjects are accurately symbolized in the corresponding verses.
The quantity, pi, symbolizes the earth---originally, and it reappears in the corresponding verse where earth is mentioned.
The circle is an accurate interpretation of the vegetation God brought forth, based on its divisibility into equal parts.
Two-dimensional coordinates along the circumference of the circle possess qualities which appear in verses.
Someone debate me to here more of my ideas.
As there is no formal round structure, and the burden of proof is entirely on my opponent, I will begin by critiquing my opponents interpretation. As Con in this argument, I will be arguing that Con has presented an inaccurate interpretation of Genesis Chapter One and will provide reason for this. Pro will be required to provide reason to why his interpretation is correct and accurate. Without further ado, let the arguments begin.
I will simply be addressing each of my opponents points by chapter:verse notation. These will be the verses referenced by my opponents video. By leaving out a verse, it can not be assumed I believe it is accurate. I will deliberately not address verses if their content leads on from a verse I have previously reasoned inaccurate, or if I plan to address it at a later time.
Verses and Arguments
1:1 – Whilst my opponent may symbolise certain words from the verse, such as earth equalling to the Greek symbol “pi”, he can not use the value of a mathematical constant or any constant value without a direct link to the text. This would be considered an inaccurate interpretation. Since my opponent has used the square root of 2500000, presumably derived from the text, with no evidence of obvious reference in the text where this number originated from, this interpretation is rendered inaccurate.
1:2 – As mentioned in the previous argument, my opponent may symbolise certain words from the verse as symbols, however he can not use the related mathematical constant unless that can be derived directly from the interpretation of the text. In this case, my opponent chose to symbolise pi as the earth and mu as darkness, generating a “magnitude” from these numbers with the mighty wind symbolised by a square root. However, my opponent has also introduced a division operator, dividing the earth by the darkness. The source of this interpretation from the text is not obvious, nor is why this fragment of a passage would form a magnitude. Hence, the interpretation of this verse is inaccurate.
To add to this complication, my opponent never defined what he meant by magnitude. Multiple definitions exist, including:
1. size; extent; dimensions;
Under the assumption my opponent is talking about magnitude as a size, which is reasonable considering the subjects he talks about(earth, wind, darkness), he is attempting to get across the following equation:
Size(Magnitude) = sqrt(earth / darkness)
Where the wind is represented by the square root. By substituting in his mathematical constants, we do achieve his original magnitude of sqrt(2500000). The problem is my opponent is begging the question. As the sqrt(2500000) did not seem to come from anywhere in the first verse where my opponent used it, and since the following verse seems to exactly equal to this original magnitude, I can conclude that my opponent used a backwards argument, deriving sqrt(2500000) from 1:2.
My opponent may have done this for visual effect. To show this isn’t magic, the actual value of the permeability of free space is:
4pi * 10^(-7) 
So obviously by doing this division, my opponent was going to get a “nice looking” number.
1:3 – In this verse, my opponent incorporates light, following his interpretation of the passage. To symbolise light, my opponent wisely uses the constant of light(c = 299792458). In this case, my opponents mathematical constant does fit with the interpretation of the passage. However, once again we find inconsistencies.
The first inconsistency is my opponents reason for the inclusion of an additional constant. My opponent states a constant is necessary to introduce light. This necessity doesn’t seem justified, as he already uses the pure constant that represents the speed of light. My opponent does not explain his reason for the necessity of the constant(which is the permittivity of free space).
We can delve deeper into this thought of mind of my opponents necessity of a constant, which happens to be the permittivity of free space. The definition of the permittivity of free space is as follows:
Permittivity of Free Space = 1 / ( (permeability of free space) * (speed of light) ^2 ) 
This conveniently ties in with the previous two constants that my opponent chose to use. Whilst this magnitude does still equal the original number he asserted, it does not naturally follow on from:
a) The previous verse(1:2) OR
Since this neither followed the previous verse or was completely derived from the text in the current verse, the interpretation must be inaccurate for this verse.
1:4 – In this verse, my opponent claims to separate the light from the darkness. This fits with the text of this particular verse, however following on from the symbolism he uses, it is not consistent.
In order to separate the light from the darkness, light and darkness must be two distinct things. My opponent stated it was necessity that the permittivity of free space was a necessary constant along side light. However, this constant is formed by the inclusion of the constant of darkness, as stated previously. Therefore, we can conclude that darkness still exists in the magnitude. This violates the texts requirement that light be separated from the darkness, therefore this is another inaccurate interpretation.
In summary of my previous arguments, I have shown that the first four verses interpreted by my opponent are indeed inaccurate. Whilst there are many more than these four verses, I can conclude prematurely that the other interpretations are most likely inaccurate. As my opponent is using a progressive argument(building from the ground up), it can be assumed and has been seen that later verses depend on previous verses. Since this is the case, if a previous verse is inaccurate, then a later verse will also have an element of inaccuracy to it. I showed that the first four verses were inaccurate, therefore it can be safely stated that the rest of the verses will have an element of inaccuracy to them.
From this argument, I conclude that my opponents interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis is inaccurate. Furthermore, the premise my opponent started on in the first verse seems to be derived from a back to front argument(starting from the back, making the premise fit with the conclusion). It will be my opponents argument to primarily demonstrate the following three things:
1. His choice for an initial magnitude in the first verse is justified
If my opponent can not address these general, and my specific cases, then it can be concluded that his interpretation is inaccurate without challenge.
The 2ND VERSE has been unrecognized by my opponent. Claimed is that there is no obviousness to the division sign when clearly in the video it is stated that the numerator is symbolized by the formless wasteland (where the earth is existing, viz. an identity) and the denominator is symbolized by the abyss (where the darkness is existing).
Not only may I conclude my opponents claim of petitio principii is inaccurate because we can clearly see the argument begins with the magnitude (one symbol) and proceeds to be broken into parts but his argument is gravely misleading (unethical) in virtue of the psychological association principle.
The 3RD VERSE takes what has been presented and incorporates light, but in order to do this a constant is necessary.
Defining what epsilon symbolizes in existence is rendered mysterious and unnecessary as the math is consistent without it. But we do know what epsilon is in physics. Since I am the one to apply light in the equation, it makes sense that I cannot interpret what epsilon is, thus leaving light originally uniterpretable.
Since my opponent has made the claim that I am begging the question and falsely, I must claim that he is attacking me (the person) and not my argument. Thankyou, come again.
I would like to begin by addressing my opponents claim that I attacked him in person and that I made misleading arguments. I don’t believe I made an Ad Hominem argument, and my opponent even stated that I attacked him due to “claiming falsely” that he was begging the question. Based on my opponents previous argument, I can justify my claim that he is begging the question, which will relieve myself of this claim of attack/misleading arguments made by my opponent.
Genesis 1:1 - Begging the Question
Firstly, I will bring up a quote from my opponent in his previous argument:
“1581.13883 is introduced---or the sqrt of 2500000. I figured it unnecessary to explain that only Heavens and Earth arepresent as of yet (as creations by God)”
So in other words, my opponent must have came up with this number himself, independently of the text. This also answers one of my demonstration points: “1. His choice for an initial magnitude in the first verse is justified”.
Since he hasn’t yet explained where this initial magnitude came from in the text, it has not yet been justified. It is not a valid reason to simply state it is unnecessary to explain it, as we are focusing on interpreting the text. Until my opponent can justify his choice of initial magnitude in accordance to Genesis 1:1, I will have to assume he simply made up the number himself.
Following on from this, if my opponent did make up this number, and this number just seems to fit with his following claims(as my opponent and myself have shown) then he is begging the question. He has come up with a premise in order to fit his conclusion/s.
Furthermore, I can strengthen my argument for my opponent begging the question. In my opponents previous argument, he also states the following:
“The magnitude does refer to size and in fact is the tangent (plane, line, etc.) of the sphere or dome. There is actually morethan one possible interpretation, so I left it alone.”.
The idea of a sphere/dome does not appear until Genesis 1:6, therefore by stating that it is the magnitude of the sphere or dome, he has shown yet again that he is begging the question. He has come up with a number, calling it the magnitude, in order to fit with his following sphere/dome interpretation.
In order for my opponent to show that he is not begging the question, he must answer the following two questions:
1. Where does your initial magnitude from Genesis 1:1 come from in reference to the text?
If my opponent fails to answer these questions, which if answered properly will disprove an initial premise formed to meet his conclusion, then my opponent is still begging the question. This renders his argument a bad argument.
Genesis 1:2 – The Division Operator
In my round one argument, I made the claim that my opponent introduced a division operator in order to “divide the earth by darkness”. My claim was that this did not following from any interpretation of the text. My opponent then claimed in his argument that the obviousness of the division operator is apparent by the mention of a numerator and denominator.
Whilst my opponent is correct in that by specifying his two symbols as numerator and denominator, you naturally have a division, this does not answer my question. Why do you divide the earth by the darkness? Where in the text does it state that the earth must be divided by the darkness, in a mathematically sense where you try to fit multiple occurrences of darkness into the earth.
Unless my opponent can provide a reason to how he interpreted the text like this, my claim still stands, maintaining Genesis 1:2 as an inaccurate interpretation.
Genesis 1:3 - The necessity of the Epsilon constant
In my opponents video, the constant of permittivity of free space was placed into the magnitude as he claimed it was necessary in order to introduce the constant of light. My opponent reiterated this in his previous argument. I made the argument that nowhere in the text is this necessity apparent, as the constant of light fully encapsulates light itself. My opponent defended himself by stating the following:
“Defining what epsilon symbolizes in existence is rendered mysterious and unnecessary as the math is consistent withoutit. But we do know what epsilon is in physics. Since I am the one to apply light in the equation,…”
As I see it, my opponent states that we do not need to define what the epsilon constant symbolizes in existence and makes the conclusion that it can be rendered unnecessary. My opponent is correct when he says this, however he has included it as an interpretation of Genesis 1:3. Because he is interpreting the text, he must derive his necessity of an additional constant from somewhere in the text. Therefore, if my opponent states you can’t define what the epsilon symbolises, how can he include it in his interpretation?
Furthermore, my opponent also states that we don’t need to know what the epsilon symbolises as the maths is consistent without out. So my opponent is stating the numerical value of the constant is consistent with the maths, so we don’t need to justify where the epsilon came from or what it means. This simply strengthens my argument for begging the question, as my opponent seems to have used the epsilon to keep his maths consistent.
I have not introduced any further arguments this round as I don’t believe it is necessary. As I stated previously, because my opponents “maths” is progressive, the inaccuracies of interpretation in these initial verses most likely introduce an element of inaccuracy in all following verses, therefore rendering the entire interpretation inaccurate.
In addition to this, my opponent did not address all of my arguments. The arguments that he did not answer include:
1. My opponents separation of light from darkness in Genesis 1:4
My opponent must also answer the following arguments I made in this round. These have been simplified for the purpose of listing, however all arguments below were made earlier in this round:
1. How is my opponents choice of initial magnitude justified in reference to the text(Genesis 1:1)
Until my opponent can properly answer all the arguments that I have made, or prove my arguments are false, invalid or bad arguments, I stand by the conclusion that my opponents interpretation of Genesis Chapter One is inaccurate.
STOP with the logic BS and analyse my INTERPRETATION, as claimed. What next? Appeal to authority. Get a conscience!
As my opponent did not argue against any of the points I made, all points from my previous argument are still valid. I do not have much to say about my opponents round three argument as nothing was said that is relevant to the topic.
My opponent requests that I analyse his interpretation. I have done just this, and through reason have come to the justified conclusion that it is an inaccurate interpretation. In order to do this, I reasoned using logic raising fallacies that my opponent had committed in his video and debate regarding the accuracy of his mathematical interpretation of Genesis Chapter One.
I would like to remind my opponent that verbal abuse is not a valid component of a debate and hope he will refrain from such verbal abuse in the future.
As mentioned previously, all the points from my previous argument are still valid. So I will repeat once again the questions I have raised for my opponent. In order to justify his claims and present a less fallacious argument, he must address the following areas:
1st COMMENT: ". . . your resolution is already confirmed in the definition. Considering an interpretation is subjective, it is accurate all of the time. If you mean accurate from an objective standpoint, you need to properly define the objective standards this accuracy must meet."
P: All interpretations that are subjective are interpretations that are accurate.
P: Some interpretations that are objective are interpretations that are accurate.
C: No interpretations that are the Preachatician's are interpretations that are accurate.
Before my opponent presents this false dichotomy he even has the nerve to conclude that my argument is the one that is ‘nonsense'. In no way does his conclusion follow from the premises, thus rendering my opponent's 1st presented argument nonsense itself, as it should properly be called.
2nd COMMENT: This passage has no evidence or implications; therefore, it is not an argument. However, my opponent does make himself look biased for drawing the conclusion that my debate possesses a "ridiculous topic". Clearly, this refers to a stereotype. My opponent judges the book by its cover. My opponent clearly states: ". . . I'm not even going to look at your video before accepting it [the debate]."
Although, what has come to light has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of my argument, I would like to use my opponent's comment as evidence that my opponent has no right in taking up this debate and only desires to attack the Preachatician. After all, my opponent clearly bases the reason for taking up the debate on a stereotype, not the presented video. By doing this I can perhaps save someone from feeling the anguish of debating ADT_Clone by persuading ADT_Clone not to take up debates and proceed to attack the instigator in the future. Upon completion of presenting reasons for this I will proceed to present evidence of why my argument is good. It should be noted that this side-argument presents no evidence for why my original argument is good.
3rd COMMENT: My opponent finally watches the video and puts in the claim ". . . it doesn't make any sense . . ." This statement is my opponent's conclusion. The premises my opponent presents to imply that conclusion are (1) "I don't understand." (2) ". . . the premise was decided after the conclusion." It should be noticed that my opponent's failure to understand has nothing to with the truth or falsity of my argument. This is an ‘appeal to authority' fallacy. Basically it looks like the following:
P: All arguments that ADT_Clone does not understand are arguments that make no sense.
P: All arguments that the Preachatician presents are arguments that ADT_Clone does not understand.
C: All arguments that the Preachatician presents are arguments that make no sense.
The first premise is false rendering his conclusion false.
The fallacy of begging the question is committed whenever the arguer creates the illusion that inadequate premises provide adequate support for the conclusion by leaving out a key premise, by restating the conclusion as a premise, or by reasoning in a circle.
Seeing that the premises provided by ADT_Clone are inadequate to conclude my argument makes no sense, my opponent is most certainly begging the question.
Furthermore, premise (2) asserts a premise of mine (what premise?) was decided after a conclusion of mine (what conclusion?). This is an argument that begs the question, as my opponent does not present even one premise to support this conclusion, let alone use it as another premise.
ADT_Clone distorts my argument and then attacks the distorted argument. He does this by claiming some premise of mine was made after some conclusion (distortion) and by concluding my argument makes no sense. Hence, this is an example of the straw man fallacy.
4th COMMENT: I introduce myself.
5th COMMENT: Although, there are no arguments presented in this comment, there is a premise. ADT_Clone states: "I'm well versed with mathematics."
Being well versed in mathematics, together with the premise he presents in the 3rd COMMENT, "I don't understand," implies that the mathematics the Preachatician presents, since he is well versed, are not understandable. This is again an appeal to authority, let alone an appeal to pity. Obviously, the conclusion is not logically relevant to the arguer's set of pathetic circumstances, although it is psychologically relevant and therefore fallacious.
6th COMMENT: I formally answer my opponent's first question. I will present this in my formal argument.
7th COMMENT: My opponent asks another question to clarify.
8th COMMENT: I clarify. Again I will present my clarification in my formal argument.
9th COMMENT: No arguments, premises, or conclusions are presented by ADT_Clone.
10th COMMENT: ADT_Clone corrects his grammar. No arguments are presented.
11th COMMENT: ADT_Clone elicits pity from the audience again and appeals to authority. After that, my opponent states: ". . . you must be able to provide fully explained reasons for why you chose to do something in accordance to the text."
My opponent claims this is necessary in order for the Preachatician's interpretation to make sense and be accurate.
Now, let's take a look at what I have claimed in the 6th COMMENT and the 8th COMMENT.
(1) "Accurate Interpretation: What is presented mathematically represents the various subjects objectively."
(2) The subjects, you know, whatever can be identified as independent from anything else, videlicet, God, the abyss, heaven, et cetera; exempli gratia, everything. . . . Every subject can be represented symbolically and consistently with the whole mathematical idea of one unique magnitude.
My opponent distorts my argument. My claim is that subjects within the text are represented objectively by mathematics. Nowhere have I said that I "chose to do something". Furthermore, ‘subjects' within the text are different from the ‘text' itself. I stated what was meant by ‘accurate interpretation' (they are my words and a clarification was fair), however my opponent, after asking me to clarify, goes on to distort my clarification. Red Herring!
This is where my formal defense begins.
Upon my argument's being misconstrued, my opponent has changed the subject of my argument in order to prove the misconstrued argument as inaccurate. Of course, this has nothing to do with my initial argument and is an off topic tangent to the debate.
In my opponent's first summary the following is presented: ". . . the premise my opponent started on in the first verse SEEMS to be derived from a back to front argument (starting from the back, making the premise fit with the conclusion)."
Now, ‘seeming' (to my opponent) to be begging the question is not the same as begging the question. My opponent must provide ample premises to conclude I am begging the question. Furthermore, as already stated, my opponent's objective failure to recognize my argument through psychological understanding is not reason enough to put in arguments against my position, like the argument that I am begging the question.
My opponent presents his formal argument against mine using rules of the logic of class, and unfortunately, his argument that I am begging the question has been presented informally. Nowhere does my opponent state what my original premise is in logical format but only assumes it to exist as a number. This inconsistency is misleading and is a distortion of my original argument.
While I did state that an accurate interpretation may be considered as "What is presented mathematically represents the various subjects objectively," nowhere did I state that the logic of class is the meaning of an accurate interpretation (yet again my opponent assumes my position), therefore rendering my opponent's interpretation of the subjects based on the logic of class irrelevant to my claim.
As I said earlier, it is inconsistent to assume my first premise as a number (1581.13883) and then proceed to analyze it logically as an ‘argument'. An argument, as it occurs in logic, is a group of statements, one or more of which (the premises) are claimed to provide support for, or reasons to believe, one of the others (the conclusion). The term ‘statement' is here equivalent to the term ‘proposition'. As it stands, the magnitude is not a proposition. Since I claim the magnitude is equivalent to the text, it follows that the text is not a proposition either. My claim, "What is presented mathematically (the magnitude) represents the various subjects objectively," is a proposition, however, and this is the argument ADT_Clone should know a priori ADT_Clone is taking up. My opponent chose to take up the argument based on a stereotype without any foreknowledge of my argument, but all my opponent had to do was ask and I would have clarified. My opponent's approach was to ". . . attack the assumptions that the mathematical relationships are BASED OFF . . ." which changes the subject of my argument from ‘accurate representation of subjects' to ‘origination of the number'.
12th COMMENT: I present the claim to ADT_Clone that the magnitude is a stipulative definition, neither true nor false, in contrast to a lexical definition (which reports the meaning that a word already has in a language and can be true or false). That the magnitude can neither be true or false implies that the magnitude is not a proposition. To clarify, a stipulative definition (1581.13883) assigns a meaning to a word (God's word) for the first time. This may involve either coining a new word or giving a new meaning to an old word. My argument gives new meaning to an old word (God's word). ADT_Clone attempts to consider the magnitude as a proposition, however, by changing the subject of my argument into the ‘origination of the number', that is, into the meaning the number already has, which is far from a ‘new meaning'. My opponent's lexical approach (reporting God's word) is unjustified and inaccurate to begin with, and I claim only what I claim (new meaning).
If I were to assume my opponent's lexical position (that God's word contradicts the new meaning I have discovered) the only contradiction I can think of is as follows:
Suppose that there are 3 events---God (E1), Heavens (E2), and Earth (E3), such that E1 precedes E2 and E2 precedes E3.
This occurs literally in the text, i.e., the name God appears 1st, Heaven 2nd, and Earth 3rd.
And suppose that God (E1) and Earth (E3) belong to the same event-type 1581.13883 (X) (which is my claim), which has no other members (note 1581.13883 makes no reference in the video to Heaven, implying Heaven is not subject to the chapter).
Now it is conceivable that there are two worlds W1 and W2, such that in W1, God (E1) and Heavens (E2) occur, whilst Earth (E3) does not; whereas in W2, Heavens (E2) and Earth (E3) occur, whilst God (E1) does not. This is consistent with the logic of class.
Thus in W1, the occurrence of Heavens (E2) would come after the occurrence of an instance of event-type 1581.13883 (X) (id est, an occurrence of the magnitude), whereas in W2, the occurrence of Heavens (E2) would come before the occurrence of an instance of type 1581.13883 (X).
Presumably, the Heavens cannot occur in two different instances. Therefore, we have a contradiction.
My opponent's distortion of my argument likely led him not to observe this, or perhaps seeing its irrelevancy, simply ignored it, as I recommend the audience does.
13th COMMENT: I present my opponent's argument first and then proceed to refute it.
"In order to separate the light from the darkness, light and darkness must be two distinct things. [I agree.] My opponent stated it was necessity that the permittivity of free space was a necessary constant alongside light. However, this constant is formed by the inclusion of the constant of darkness, as stated previously. Therefore, we can conclude that darkness still exists in the magnitude. This violates the texts requirement that light be separated from the darkness, therefore this is another inaccurate interpretation."
Later the darkness is presented as equating to the area of the CONE multiplied by the magnitude raised to the negative fourth thus rendering it distinct in form from light, since this particular form (cone) has nothing to do with the entity of light. Perhaps, my opponent could construe an argument based on light-cones of physics, but required would be proving the cone in the video is indeed a light cone.
14th COMMENT: My opponent argues that I can't justify the exact reason I got the number from the text. Again, my opponent bases his argument upon a different subject; in particular, the origination of the number. I make no claim as to where the number comes from. I only claim that the number is equivalent to the subjects presented. That the number is equivalent to the text is my only claim. While it is true that a lexical definition should indicate the context to which the definiens (1581.13883) pertains and that whenever the definiendum (God's word) means different things in different contexts, a reference to the context is important, I have already pointed out that the magnitude is not a lexical definition---rather, a stipulative definition and a stipulative definition is not a proposition.
15th COMMENT: I shall analyze Bertrand Russell's passage for my opponent's sake, since my substituting propositions with relevant ones to this debate is uncommon and has led my opponent to form a false conclusion over it.
My opponent concludes in the 16th COMMENT the following: ". . . the definitions you substituted in would be logically irrelevant and would not imply the conclusions you are trying to reach." Although my opponent does not state what context the definitions I substituted into the passage would be irrelevant to, I can see that there are three options. Either the substitutions are irrelevant to the passage of Bertrand Russell's or they are irrelevant to this debate, or both. I will prove this conclusion my opponent draws as false in all cases. I will ignore the fact that my opponent's claim of ‘logical irrelevancy' has been backed by no adequate premises, hence rendering the claim asinine, and proceed with the interpretation; first, I would like to draw attention to my opponent's statement ". . . the whole passage there didn't make too much sense to me, and something was fishy about it." The passage does not make a whole lot of sense to my opponent yet, somehow, he forms a supposedly valid conclusion over it. What about the part he didn't understand? Does it have something to say which contradicts his hasty generalization?
From . . . The Principles of Mathematics:
(1) It may be asked, how comes it that Socrates may be varied in the proposition ‘Socrates is a man implies Socrates is mortal'?
I will now present what I transcribed with my own substitutions.
(1) It may be asked, how comes it Heavens and Earth may be varied in the proposition ‘Heavens and Earth are creations by God implies Heavens and Earth are 1581.13883'?
The subject ‘Socrates' has been substituted with the subject ‘Heavens and Earth'. Also, ‘is a man' has been substituted with ‘are creations by God'.
The proposition, ‘Socrates is a man,' I have substituted with the alternative proposition, ‘Heavens and Earth are creations by God,' and because in the context of Bertrand Russell's text the subjectivity is on propositions, substituting my own example of a proposition for Bertrand Russell's selection does not change the meaning of his text. I did this merely to present Bertrand Russell's argument as relevant to this debate.
Furthermore, the proposition ‘Socrates is mortal' has been substituted with ‘Heavens and Earth are 1581.13883'.
Bertrand Russell asks a question and the question I presented is no different.
How is it that ‘Socrates' can be varied from ‘man' to ‘mortal'?
How is it that ‘Heavens and Earth' can be varied from ‘creations by God' to ‘1581.13883'?
This is the question implied in my opponent's distortion of my argument into the origination of the number, which I will kindly justify by way of this passage.
(2) In virtue of the fact that true propositions are implied by all others, we have ‘Socrates is a man implies Socrates is a philosopher'; but in this proposition, alas, the variability of Socrates is sadly restricted.
(2) In virtue of the fact that true propositions are implied by all others, we have ‘Heavens and Earth are creations by God implies Heavens and Earth are 1678.290384'; but in this proposition, alas, the variability of Heavens and Earth is sadly restricted.
We see that the class ‘philosopher', which I have substituted with ‘1678.290384', does not encompass what the class ‘mortal' does. Similarly, the class ‘1581.13883' is less restrictive than the class ‘1678.290384.'
In context to this debate, the class 1581.13883 encompasses the first chapter of Genesis (my claim), and the class 1678.290384 does not encompass the first chapter of Genesis, thus rendering the variability of ‘Heavens and Earth' more restricted when the class 1678.290384 is considered in comparison to 1581.13883.
(3) This seems to show that formal implication involves something over and above the relation of implication, and that some additional relation must hold where a term can be varied.
I have made no substitutions in this passage. It is straightforward.
(4) In the case in question, it is natural to say that what is involved is the relation of inclusion between the classes ‘men' and ‘mortals'---the very relation which was to be defined and explained by our formal implication. [Socrates is a man implies Socrates is a mortal.]
(4) In the case in question, it is natural to say that what is involved is the relation of inclusion between the classes 'creations by God' and '1581.13883'---the very relation which was to be defined and explained by the formal implication. [Heavens and Earth are creations by God implies Heavens and Earth are 1581.13883.]
‘Mortals' is class of which the class ‘men' is a part.
‘Heavens and Earth' is a class of which ‘1581.13883' is a part.
(5) But this view [‘the relation of inclusion between classes'] is too simple to meet all cases, and is therefore NOT REQUIRED IN ANY CASE.
In other words, there is no need for me to present the answer to my opponent's off topic question.
No substitution here. It is straightforward. The same is our case with the passage following this.
(6) A LARGER number of cases, though still not all cases, can be dealt with by the notion of what are called assertions.
I skip Bertrand Russell's next sentence as he presents no argument in it.
(7) It has always been customary to divide propositions into subject and predicate; but this division has the defect of omitting the verb.
It can be said that my opponent omits verbs because he argues by classes, dividing propositions into subjects and predicates. It has been adequately explained that this is neither what my claim states nor is it the proper context to argue within for this debate because my argument uses a subject and assertion division (which incorporates more cases of formal implications than the subject and predicate division).
I skip ahead again, as Bertrand Russell's argument is repeated in the passage following this argument I have omitted.
(8) Thus ‘Socrates is a man' may be divided into ‘Socrates' and ‘is a man'.
(8) Thus ‘Heavens and Earth are creations by God' may be divided into ‘Heavens and Earth' and ‘are creations by God'.
I stick with the same substitutions as I used previously to be consistent and to present an argument relevant to this debate.
Summarizing the last sentence, we have: Given any proposition whatsoever, the proposition may be divided into subject and assertion. (An alternative to a division into subject and predicate.)
(9) The verb, which is the distinguishing mark of propositions, remains with the assertion (the something said about the subject); but the assertion itself, being robbed of its subject, is neither true nor false.
No substitution here, but to clarify what Bertrand Russell means by the word verb, well, these are simply ‘is' in his example, and ‘are' in my example. Both mean to the same thing---‘to be'.
The ‘assertion' in my example . . . ‘are creations by God' . . . is neither true nor false by itself.
I skip ahead because Bertrand Russell only points out a reason why people might fail to notice his argument, just as ADT_Clone has.
(10) . . . the analysis into subject and assertion is legitimate, to distinguish implications in which there is a term which can be varied from others in which this is not the case.
An implication that has a term which can be varied is to be distinguished from an implication that has a term which cannot be varied.
Heaven and Earth is a term which can be varied.
I skip way ahead to get to the point.
(11) . . . the notion of a propositional function, and the notion of an assertion, are more fundamental than the notion of class . . .
Classes cannot be varied. Let's consider the assertion ‘are creations by God'. To make the assertion become a class we simply drop the verb ‘are' or the equivalent ‘to be', just as my opponent has done. The assertion then becomes the class ‘creations by God' which is not variable. Unless my opponent can justify himself in dropping the verb, and thus twisting my argument into one based on classes, his argument should not be considered as relevant to the debate, because nowhere have I implied that an ‘accurate interpretation' is to be based on classes. My opponent assumes my position, as was stated earlier. In fact, my position, formally, is the only alternative, one based on subjects and assertions---not subject and predicate. Furthermore, it has been shown that my position is more fundamental, encompassing more cases, just as the Aristotelian position encompasses more cases concerning the validity of syllogism in comparison to the Boolean standpoint.
I skip ahead to expand upon this point.
(12) It seems to be the very essence of what may be called a formal truth [logical coherence of deductions from postulates or premises without contradiction] . . . that some assertion [‘are creations by God', for example] is affirmed to hold of every term; and unless the notion of every term is admitted, formal truths are impossible.
How is it that ‘Heavens and Earth' can be varied from ‘creations by God' to ‘1581.13883'?
Notice that my claim's assertion (‘are creations by God') is ‘affirmed to hold of every term'.
By the word ‘term' is meant any object of thought, whatever may occur in a true or false proposition, or whatever may be counted as one. ‘Heavens and Earth may be counted as one. Therefore ‘Heavens and Earth' is a term.
‘Are creations by God' is ‘affirmed to hold of Heavens and Earth.
Since Heavens and Earth may be varied, ‘are creations by God' is affirmed to hold of 1581.13883.
Unless the notion that Heavens and Earth is variable is admitted by my opponent, the formal truth of my argument cannot be recognized.
This amounts to admitting the Heavens and Earth are indeterministic. If my opponent chooses not to recognize that Heavens and Earth are variable, and claims them deterministic, it should be a simple proof for my opponent to define every term in the Heavens and Earth.
16th COMMENT: I have already presented the conclusion drawn by my opponent and stated there were not adequate premises presented to draw the conclusion. However, my opponent does present an unrelated syllogism for my analysis. My opponent states: If you want me to fully consider what you wrote, describe it in your own words, because this tells me you really don't even know what you are talking about.
I interpret this as: In order for all the implications I have presented to my opponent to be considered, I must do what he wants.
The fallacy of appeal to force occurs whenever an arguer poses a conclusion (which my opponent has done and I have presented earlier) to another person and tells that person either implicitly or explicitly that some harm will come to him or her if he or she does not accept the conclusion. The fallacy always involves a threat by the arguer to the physical or psychological well-being of the listener or reader, who may be either a single person or a group of persons. Obviously, such a threat is logically irrelevant to the subject matter of the conclusion, so any argument based on such an ‘ad baculum' is fallacious.
That I must do what he wants disregards my freedom as an individual and therefore my well-being.
17th COMMENT: The first principle I established as to persuade people that the claim of my debate is accurate is that I, the Preachatician, begin with a magnitude, which is equivalent to an expression with the same amount of subjects as the original words. It should be noted that the magnitude is presented in the first verse and the equivalent expression is presented in verse two. In verse two, I have properly symbolized all subjects of the text with mathematical constants.
Then my opponent claimed: "Since my opponent has used the square root of 2500000 [verse 1], presumably derived from the text, with no evidence of obvious reference in the text where this number originated from, this interpretation is rendered inaccurate."
My opponent blatantly ignores the fact that the first verse is interpreted as the creation by God of everything that exists or simply put, that heavens and earth ‘are'. They exist. I say ‘everything that exists' because the subject-matter involves Heavens and Earth, which sums to the entire, existent universe [and when considered as a term is one]. Since everything has been created, it follows that 1581.13883 has been created.
This ignorance leads my opponent on a tangent, claiming fallacies in my presented argument. This is an example of the existential fallacy.
Let's consider also the 18th COMMENT as it is actually the last half of the 17th comment.
18th COMMENT: The existential fallacy is committed whenever contrary, subcontrary, and subalternation are used on propositions about things that do not exist.
An otherwise correct use of the contrary relation is presented by my opponent's following argument:
‘No numbers the Preachatician presents are numbers that are justified' (I am considering only verse 1). Therefore, it is false that all numbers the Preachatician presents are numbers that are justified.
In fact, ‘numbers presented by the Preachatician' does not exist.
Notice I do not claim that I came up with the number in my first principle. In all reality, God is the creator of the number is implicated and follows from the conclusion of my entire argument. I claim the magnitude is relevant to the first verse, since it is included in creations. However, my opponent claims I did make up the number and begged the question. This, of course, changes the subject of the debate from relevant numbers into origination of numbers.
All that is presented in the first verse is a relation.
"The relation holds, in fact, when it does hold, without any reference to the truth or falsehood of the propositions involved." ~ Bertrand Russell
"Stipulative definitions are neither true nor false . . . "
My opponent bases arguments on truth or falsity, which is 'a vulgar prejudice in favor of true propositions', and of course, his position is less fundamental.
19th COMMENT: I state that my opponent attacked me the person instead of my argument again in the 16th comment when claiming that because I substituted relevant propositions into a text to get my point across, I am therefore incapable of understanding what I am talking about. The argument is irrelevant and I could quote ADT_CLone as not able to understand what has been implied . . .
This has been covered already, but this was where I had pointed it out to ADT_Clone as inappropriate.
20th COMMENT: Again the comment is the second half of the prior one.
If ADT_Clone is not capable of understanding the words or math "the whole passage there didn't make too much sense to me" and "I have tried hard to make sense of the mathematics you have written. But I just can't make sense of it, I don't see how it is interpreted from the text, I really don't sorry," my question is . . . why did ADT_Clone take up my debate in the first place?
(Recall that earlier I presented evidence of a stereotype.)
In ADT_Clone's very own argument ADT_Clone proves incapable of understanding even though mathematically, that is, logically implications are present.
(I have not suppressed any evidence.)
The only reason I can come up with is ADT_Clone has a motive to attack the Preachatician, as you implied in your first comments.
ADT_Clone's lack of understanding is irrelevant to refuting my claim that the numbers are relevant in the correct places.
ADT_Clone should try holding your personal opinions out of the argument.
I ONLY PRESENT MINE FOR WHAT ADT_Clone has done to me.
(This is a matter of my personal beliefs)
Besides, nowhere has ADT_Clone recognized my original argument due to his less fundamental outlook, therefore making my opponent's entire debate simply harassment. I have not personally attacked ADT_Clone in any way, merely his harassment technique, or so-called argument. My opponent presents no relevant arguments to begin with, or simply repeats the same off-topic harassment technique, and when I refuted my opponent's off topic harassment technique, it appears that I have attacked ADT_Clone the person. In truth, I have no other option to make him recognize my argument in the first place. If he presents no argument related to this debate, how can I refute it? This is what I meant when I said ADT_Clone has a ‘thick skull'.
I have adequately shown why ADT_Clone has been off topic.
20th COMMENT: (ADT_Clone realizes Heavens and Earth exist.)
Thank you, now we can continue the debate. I would also like the exact line where I "attacked" you.
(Again ADT_Clone ignores, or can't put together, the implications)
(Again ADT_Clone demands an off topic argument from my freedom)
(Although it appears as if I am attacking ADT_Clone the person, since he can't put the propositions together to form relevant conclusions, I will defend myself by claiming ADT_Clone uses the ‘Missing the point fallacy' by drawing conclusion (such as I am a hypocrite) different from that supported by my arguments premises.
I quote ADT_Clone: "It's kind of hypocritical considering your use of Ad Hominem in the comment and the one after you claimed I attack you. Regardless, comments are not a part of the official debate. However, out of good will I will use your explanitive comment on the question I asked and assume it was a part of your Round 3 debate if you accept that?
Here again ADT_Clone attacks me the Preachatician in a different form. It's called Ad Hominem (tu quoque), that is ADT_Clone presents me as a hypocrite. Here we have an instance of a hypocrite calling the Preachatician a hypocrite, and even in the same COMMENT in which ADT_Clone is hypocritical.
21st COMMENT: (I provide the appropriate reference to where ADT_Clone attacks me.)
". . . this interpretation is rendered inaccurate" is attacking me because ADT_Clone claims I am begging the question and falsely. . . it's defamation, calumny, vilification, traducement, slander, and libel.
(In other words, ADT_Clone's communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. I claim accuracy, to be positive, and ADT_clone claims not only inaccuracy but that I am fallacious and inappropriately, hence tarnishing my image. This is what I mean when I say his argument is gravely misleading or unethical by the psychological association principle.)
22nd COMMENT: (ADT_Clone attempts defending himself logically but what is presented is not logical.)
"The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation"
That is the title of the debate is it not? Claiming that your interpretation is inaccurate and backing this up with evidence is an argument. It happens this is the position the Con must take, as I assume you as the Pro would be taking the position that is mentioned in the title of your debate, in that the Bible Maths that is presented by the Preachatician is an accurate interpretation.
In order to win the debate, I as the Con must provide an argument against your claim. I have done that and claiming that by doing so, I attacked you is illogical. I hope we are on the same grounds in regards to what we are debating, otherwise your title was awfully misleading.
(I shall rewrite the argument in logical form.)
P: All Cons are people who present claims against the Pro in order to win.
P: All people who are ADT_Clone are people who present claims against the Pro in order to win.
C: All claims of fallacy made against ADT_Clone's argument are illogical.
We can see that the proper conclusion would be:
C: All people who are ADT_Clone are Cons.
ADT_Clone's above argument is fallacious and the conclusion he makes should be disregarded.
23rd COMMENT: I make an appropriate premises to imply the conclusion that ADT_Clone indeed attacks me.
Unfortunately arguing "begging the question" is risky business since its premises involve the person. You the Con, to be the justified Con, ought to be able to admit to this to yourself a priori in reflection. Otherwise you have no business debating me, that is, putting the claim in.
P: All people posing the argument ‘begging the question' are people with an argument accusing the opponent of fallacy.
P: All people who are ADT_Clone are people with an argument accusing the opponent of fallacy.
C: All people who are ADT_Clone are people posing the argument of begging the question.
Now that I have established validly ADT_Clone is arguing that I am begging the question, I can refute that argument, and I have done so.
I have stated: Not only may I conclude my opponents claim of petitio principii is inaccurate because we can clearly see my argument begins with the magnitude (one symbol) and proceeds to be broken into parts but his argument is gravely misleading (unethical) in virtue of the psychological association principle.
It took some tinkering but I now am able to see why he did not accept beginning with one magnitude. It is because he does not recognize the verb ‘to be'. The Heavens and Earth in fact ‘are' and exist. I have established in this article why my interpretation of ‘accurate interpretation' is more fundamental than ADT_Clones. ADT_Clones position is not justified in relevance to this debate. ADT_Clone would have to justify his less fundamental view, which restricts my claim of ‘accurate interpretation' to suit his argument. It wasn't my fault ADT_Clone could not understand that the initial magnitude is not a proposition. ADT_Clone would have to turn the magnitude into a proposition to justify his interpretation of ‘accurate interpretation'. That can't, in all existence, ever happen.
24th COMMENT: ADT_Clone continues on his alternate debate.
"Begging the question" is independent from the person.
This is a false statement made by ADT_Clone. ADT_Clone proves this in the next sentence.
If SOMEONE has made an argument that is begging the question, it means YOU assume fact A is true, possibly go through some other premise's and ultimately conclude that fact A is true.
We see ADT_Clones premises involve people, as I have argued.
YOU have made the claim that I attacked YOU for claiming inaccurately that YOU were begging the question.
This sentence has three occurrences of the person the Preachatician (me). How is the premise I presented above false? (All people posing the argument ‘begging the question' are people with an argument accusing the opponent of fallacy.)
ADT_Clone's claim that I am begging the question is false in virtue of it being off topic to this debate. It is an argument for his alternative debate, not this one. Also all claims of begging the question accuse the opponent of fallacy. ADT_Clone tries to make me look fallacious (puts in the claim to be considered factual). In virtue of ADT_Clone's false claim my image looks negative (Defamation).
I then provided ample reason to why YOU were begging the question. Since YOU have not been able to provide sufficient argument against this, I will stand by my claim.
So-called ample reason is in fact insufficient in the context of THIS debate.
In order for my opponent to show that he is not begging the question, he must answer the following two questions:
1. Where does your initial magnitude from Genesis 1:1 come from in reference to the text? (An alternate argument)
2. Where in Genesis 1:1-5 do you interpret that you need a magnitude for a sphere or dome that appears in Genesis 1:6.
Sure, I must provide these premises for ADT_Clone's debate, but not this one. Recall what has been covered, ‘Heavens and Earth' is a class of which ‘1581.13883' is a part.
(5) But this view [‘the relation of inclusion between classes'] is too simple to meet all cases (of formal implication), and is therefore NOT REQUIRED IN ANY CASE.
In other words, there is no need for me to present the answer to my opponent's off topic question.
ADT_Clone's entire position is flawed.
25th COMMENT: The implication that God created the number was there all along. You failed to recognize it and proceeded to argue an existential fallacy. Although as Con, you have no responsibility to argue in my defense and present the fact (God created numbers), you should not present arguments that are fallacious, such as I am begging the question, based on an existential fallacy. Nowhere had I claimed to have come up with the number myself and you assumed my position (another fallacy). The number, being a stipulative definition (of the chapter to be interpreted), is neither true nor false. "The relation holds, in fact, when it does hold, without any reference to the truth or falsehood of the propositions involved." I see where you are coming from. ". . . you must be able to provide fully explained reasons for why you chose to do something in accordance to the text. Things like, having a magnitude in the first place, or choosing your magic number to begin with as the magnitude, or to interpret the separation of earth and darkness in a certain way." I hope by text you mean subjects because that is how I look at it. The first verse has been analysed into classes and into assertions in the comments section. We see that by classes the verse becomes divided into two 'worlds'. This is a poor interpretation as propositions and assertions have precedence over classes. The assertions view, being the correct one, simply assigns a value to a variable interpretation. Nowhere have I chosen the numbers. The numbers are a relation accurate throughout the first chapter of Genesis. I am a discoverer and you . . . are donkey-lips.
ADT_Clone's position is like claiming Jupiter does not exist, but we all know it ‘IS', therefore . . . donkey-lips. ADT_Clone is ignoring existence, implications, and God.
We should be on the same page now.
ADT_Clone wants justification for:
1. My opponent's separation of light from darkness in Genesis 1:4
Huh? I haven't separated light from darkness. Oh, I see. A cone is a different form from that of light.
2. Why my opponent is able to use the value of mathematical constants in his interpretation and where in the text did he get these values from?
The numbers ARE the text is my claim. (Please, don't just ignore this verb.) Origination of the numbers is an alternate debate.
3. Why my opponents mathematical formula do not cover every element of text in each verse.
If we can get over your debate and proceed with this one, I will gladly give you my ideas. The burden of proof is on me and I would appreciate your cooperation in providing relevant material in the next round.
4. How is my opponent's choice of initial magnitude justified in reference to the text (Genesis 1:1)
Irrelevant subject. (origination of number)
No choice has been made. I have witnessed something.
5. How is my opponents choice to divide the earth by the darkness justified in reference to the text (Genesis 1:2)
If number exists, which it does, and numbers are expressible as ratios, dividing earth by darkness is simply an expression of the same thing.
6. How is my opponents choice of including an epsilon, which he claims a necessity to introduce the constant of light, justified in reference to the text (Genesis 1:3)
I quote ADT_Clone: Because he is interpreting the text, he must derive his necessity of an additional constant from somewhere in the text.
Again no choice has been made to include epsilon, it is necessary to incorporate light into the magnitude, which I have established to exist. Besides, the permittivity of empty space is not something physical. But if you simply broaden this point of yours I have much knowledge of the constant to work with. Lets try getting further so I can answer many questions.
ADT_Clone cannot present an off topic argument again, as I have only one round left, to prove my debate. If he does, then I have been cheated of a true debate and should be considered the winner, not based on truth or falsity of my debate, but in these circumstances, based on not being able to argue against valid claims.
I would like to advise the audience that comments posted in the comments section are not apart of the official 5 round debate. This would be unfair as one player could present a larger argument than allowed. Therefore, none of my comments should be considered a part of this debate. However, as my opponent has put them in his debate, I will address the ones that are relevant to my argument.
I also will accept my opponents definition of an accurate interpretation: “What is presented mathematically represents the various subjects objectively.”. However, I will extend this to include connective words such as ‘to be’ and ‘are’, as my opponent has used these as part of his argument:
“It is because he does not recognize the verb ‘to be'. The Heavens and Earth in fact ‘are' and exist.”
A strawman fallacy is committed when an argument is exaggerated from its original meaning and then used in another argument. My opponent committed multiple strawmen fallacies throughout his argument which can often be linked to his inaccurate syllogisms. I will highlight one as an example.
In response to comment 3, my opponent made the following logical argument:
“P: All arguments that ADT_Clone does not understand are arguments that make no sense.
He claimed from this that I was begging the question and committing a strawman fallacy. He also claimed the logical argument was based off what I said:
‘ ". . . it doesn't make any sense . . ." This statement is [ADT_Clone]’s conclusion. The premises [ADT_Clone] presents to imply that conclusion are (1) "I don't understand." (2) ". . . the premise was decided after the conclusion." ‘
If you check the comments, I actually said “it doesn’t make any sense to me”. This is an opinion rather than an objective statement, however my opponent deliberately excluded this in order to generate his first premise:
Another example is when my opponent combines two separate statements I made("I'm well versed with mathematics." and “I don't understand,") to claim I appealed to authority. This is a strawman as I did not state or imply these phrases together. As such, the arguments above are fallacious arguments and should be ignored throughout my opponents debate.
Fallacy of Presumption – Division
A fallacy of division occurs when one assumes that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts. My opponent makes the following argument in his debate:
“I say ‘everything that exists' because the subject-matter involves Heavens and Earth, which sums to the entire, existent universe [and when considered as a term is one]. Since everything has been created, it follows that 1581.13883 has been created.”
My opponent has claimed since everything has been created, 1581.13883 has been created. Just because the universe has the property of being created does not mean 1581.13883 has the property of being created, therefore this is a fallacy of division, hence making my opponents argument fallacious.
Fallacy of ambiguity – Equivocation
A fallacy of equivocation occurs when at least two different meanings for a word or phrase are used within an argument.
In the 12th comment, my opponent claimed ‘1581.13883’ was a stipulative definition. However, later on he makes the following statements:
“I only claim that the number is equivalent to the subjects presented.”
“Notice I do not claim that I came up with the number in my first principle.”
References to ‘1581.13883’ as a number presents a different meaning from being a stipulative definition. It is also implied through his use of mathematics that this should be interpreted as a number. Therefore my opponent is committing a fallacy of ambiguity, thus this argument is fallacious.
My opponent uses a passage from Bertrand Russell. He presents Bertrand Russell’s original argument as follows:
P1: ‘Socrates is a man’
My opponent excluded an important assumption that Bertrand made:
“This proposition is equivalent to ‘all men are mortal’, ‘every man is mortal’ and ‘any man is mortal’.” 
Therefore in order for my opponents statement to be true, he would have to had made the assumption ‘All creations by God are 1581.13883’. In a mathematical sense, this would cause contradictions, such as 1 = 1581.13883. In a stipulative sense, my opponent would simply be symbolising “all creations by God” as “1581.13883”.
Regardless of the case, my opponent has inconsistent evidence, namely the following two assumptions:
“All creations by God are 1581.13883” (Which is derived from my opponents argument)
“Since everything has been created, it follows that 1581.13883 has been created.”
If all creations are ‘1581.13883’, then every symbolisation including earth and darkness must be 1581.13883. Also, since my opponent defined a distinct class in his argument, namely ‘1678.290384’, this must also be 1581.13883. Both of these are contradictory, therefore the above evidence is inconsistent, thus this argument is fallacious.
I would like to close the argument by bringing together all previous arguments I have mentioned. I have exposed many fallacies in my opponents argument, and I can assure the audience that there are many more present. This makes my opponents argument a fallacious argument which should not be considered as reason.
Even if we assume my opponents argument is good and valid, the above areas I have presented are contradictory. My opponent stated:
“Since everything has been created, it follows that 1581.13883 has been created.”
So all creations by God must be 1581.13883. Hence the Heaven and Earth which make up the universe must be 1581.13883, however the universe must also be 1581.13883. Furthermore, 1581.13883 is both stipulative and numerical. These all contradict each other, which validates my above reason for my opponents argument being fallacious.
In order to be an accurate interpretation, the mathematics must represent the various subjects objectively. However, how are the “symbols” my opponent used representative of the subjects mathematically? How is ‘pi’ representative of earth, or ‘mu’ representative of darkness? Why did my opponent require an additional “symbol” in order to separate light from darkness? He claims the following:
“Later the darkness is presented as equating to the area of the CONE multiplied by the magnitude raised to the negative fourth thus rendering it distinct in form from light, since this particular form (cone) has nothing to do with the entity of light.”
We have the concept of an area, a mathematical concept which requires numbers to make sense. But my opponent states what he uses are merely “symbols” and that his initial number 1581.13883 is a stipulative definition. It is impossible to mathematically represent the various subjects objectively without the following:
1. Well-defined mathematical relations between the subjects(in/equality) and/or
In conclusion, I have shown that my opponents argument is fallacious. I would like to remind the audience that comments are not apart of the official debate, and therefore should not be considered. My opponent has yet to properly justify his use of mathematics to represent the subjects that are in the text objectively. In order to do this, my opponent must present a cogent argument for his claim. Until my opponent can do this, I have sufficiently shown that his interpretation is inaccurate.
An Example of disjunction: ("A or Z" = "A implies C implies Z") Let me say C = 1581.13883.
Although, it is easy to persuade oneself the proposition ("A" = the Holy Bible) as false does imply every other proposition, it renders (1) "A implies Z" and (2) [("A implies Z1" implies Z2) implies Z3] is true. Another form of this is (3) ["A or Z" = "Z or A"]. Another form of this is (4) ["ANY proposition implied by A and implied by Z is true"] or (5) ["A implies B" and "Z imply B" together imply B], whatever B may be, say 1678.290384. ADT_Clone can't use these propositions (1-5) logically; that is, in the context of sound deductive arguments. I am PROVIDING a class-concept for ADT_Clone to be these propositions (1-5) would be a red herring---Z into C because A is necessary to imply Z. Besides, without A there is NO C and without C there is NO Z, as my formal implication asserts upon the subject A.
From Bertrand Russell's The Principles of Mathematics: "In cases where the CLASS defined by a class-concept has only a finite number of terms, it is possible to omit the class-concept wholly, and indicate the various objects denoted by enumerating the terms and connecting them by means of AND or OR as the case may be." (p. 56)
I have adequately OMITTED the class-concept in the practical major premise (class-concept) wholly. I have adequately indicated the objects. I have adequately connected the objects by OR for the example of a conjunction is like stating ‘duh'.
My opponent presents his formal argument against mine using rules of the logic of class, and the argument that I am begging the question has been presented. Nowhere does my opponent state my original premise is in a universal format through syllogism the ‘what' that is not presented mathematically and ADT_Clone does not beg this question but presents red herrings; rather, only ADT_Clone assumes a number (1581.13883) as true is not. Although 1581.13883 exists in ADT_Clone's thesis, it does not have to exist in ADT_Clone's implication? ADT_Clone presents no deductive arguments against this. Now, this inconsistency is no longer misleading and is not longer than a distortion of my original argument.
From Bertrand Russell's The Principles of Mathematics: "Our calculus studies the relation of implication between propositions, which holds between propositional functions when the one implies the other for ALL values of the VARIABLE." (p. 14)
If any two regions exist say (If PRO, then CON), then there is a third region inbetween those any ‘all regions consisting of only two regions'.
The above is an ‘if/then' implication. It is an axiom (formal). In converse, those implications that are represented by ‘implies' are axiomz (material). My formal wording and material wording have been chronically misconstrued from the ‘the Holy Bible' to the ‘genus of a variable class' by my opponent, as my argument is removed from the second round by my opponent in my opponent's own spirit.'
If any of the axiomz/verses are true, it does not follow that the appearance of consequences with an opposite principle imply those axiomz/verses have been supposed false in all moments.
For you to see the following proposition is not PRACTICAL: A proposition presenting the assumption [not one existing fallacy AS not universally presented here in this a major premise] IS [a variable term in this a minor premise] . . .
. . . my OPPONENT must prove my statement wrong by GENESIS Chapter 1 in order to prove my statement wrong by GENESIS Chapter 1, BEFORE my opponent does not prove my statement wrong with a variable term ‘genus'. ADT_Clone's thesis is insufficient.
(VERSE 1/10 AXIOMZ) (FORMAL) If p implies q (formal), then p implies q (material). P and Q are verse 1 and verse 2. ‘Verse 1 implies verse 2' is a proposition. Verse 1 and verse 2 comprise a complete sentence implies the same. My opponent makes it appear that by the [‘supposing' (a verb)] of my statement wrong, then my opponent can render my argument false in the second moment. My first axiomz, to be sure, imply that the axiomz are true in the first place (MAJOR PREMISE) not the second (MINOR PREMISE) and to attempt such a feat is changing the subject of the major premise to that of the subject of the asserted immoral minor premise. Formally, the Holy Bible places verse 1 and verse 2 into one sentence. "In the beginning, when God created the Heavens and the Earth, . . . "
(VERSE 2/10 AXIOMZ FORMAL) ". . . the earth was a formless wasteland, and darkness covered the abyss, WHILE a mighty wind . . ." If p (formal) implies q (material), then p (formal) implies p (formal OR material).
And by blessed exponents . . .*
OR (A proposition implies a proposition.)
*. . . occurs in the same way as to predicate time.
(VERSE 2/10 AXIOMZ MATERIAL) ". . . swept over the waters." If verse/axiom 2 (formal) implies verse/axiom 2 (material), then verse/axiom 2 (formal) implies verse/axiom 2 (formal). Verse/axiomz 2 (formal + material) implies verse 3 by inclusion in verse 1.
These two axiomz, together with the first axiom (being variable), imply these two axiomz. I do not change my own subject. In fact, if the variable term 1581.13883 implies Heavens (formal) and Earth (formal), the variable term 1581.13883 implies the variable term 1581.13883. ADT_Clone is the one to assert the subject, in particular, verse 1 and verse 2 and verse 3 in his classical interpretation.
(VERSE 3/10 FORMAL) In the coming up verse/axiom(z) of 3 (MATERIAL), 1581.13883 is also equivalent to the original expression when two and/or class-constants (light and the permittivity of free space) or [verse/axiom 1 (1581.13883) and verse/axiom 2 (1581.13883 = (pi divided by mu (not))^1/2 (MATERIAL)] are in one term implying verse/axiom(z) 3 (MATERIAL).
(VERSE 3) (MATERIAL) "Then God said, ‘Let there be light,' and there was light." The following proposition is strictly material: Whatever is implied by anything is a proposition. If p implies q, then q implies q. If (verses/axiomz 1 and 2) (FORMAL) imply verse/axiom(z) of 3 (MATERIAL), then verse 3 implies verse 3. Verse 3 is a subject. If verse 3 implies verse Z, then verse Z implies verse Z. Here is asserted (verse 1 and verse 2) (FORMAL) imply verse 4, regardless of implication. Also, here is asserted [(the fact that verse 3 is divided in virtue of verse 4 implying I am wrong) (minor premise) categorically and not practically]---and the categorical syllogistic thesis of ADT_Clone's is insufficient to show that [the New American Bible (major premise) is wrong].
The above axioms are adequately established and conduce my opponent's position is not ever possibly justified.
(VERSE 4) "God saw how good the light was. [A FORMAL IMPLICATION] God then separated the light from the darkness." [A MATERIAL IMPLICATION]. A true hypothesis in an implication may be dropped [as verse/axiom 4 DOES to its own minor premise (verse 3, the good and just one; i.e., formal) (not verse 1 [AND and OR] verse 2)], and the consequent asserted. That verse/axiom 4 does drop a true hypothesis in its minor premise (in-itself), relevant to the cone. What is presented ADT_Clone's ‘the straw-man fallacy' is that the ‘heavens + earth' would reach the pinnacle, which they never will.
Allow me to define the joint assertion of two propositions as a logical PRODUCT.
If p implies p, then, if q implies q, pq became the definition of if p implies that q implies r, r has become true. (The Word or this) (is equivalent to stipulative). If equivocation were present in this argument by all means present what Jesus meant as the genus ‘Heavens and Earth' as you have done (?), but the fact that ‘Heavens and Earth' are present in that cone of which [(the darkness equates to the surface area) divided by the ‘Heavens and Earth'] is true.
$ REFERENCE 1 (formal): http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
$ REFERENCE 2 (formal): http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
(?) ADT_Clone 3 (material):
Fallacy of ambiguity – Equivocation
A fallacy of equivocation occurs when at least two different meanings for a word or phrase are used within an argument. [Yeah, in ADT_Clone's class interpretation of which (1) equivocation implies (2) red herring implies (3) genetic fallacy. Besides, my argument practically begs the question in order to (1) lay the food on the table---implying (2) your eyes are bigger than your stomach---implying (3) donkey-lips.]
In the 12thcomment, my opponent claimed ‘1581.13883' was a stipulative definition. However, later on he makes the following statements:
"I only claim that the number is equivalent to the subjects presented."
[All of what God had to say said God.]
If [verse/axiomz 4 (FORMAL) implies verse/axiom 4 (FORMAL)], then, [verse/axiomz 4 (MATERIAL) implies verse/axiomz 4 (MATERIAL)], [verse/axiomz 4 (FORMAL) multiplied by verse/axiomz 4 (MATERIAL)].
Contrary to what my opponent stated, the topic of the debate is as follows:
"The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation"
The number, or stipulative definition, whichever my opponent inevitablly decides is 1581.13883 and was apart of his "Bible Maths". Therefore, if it can be questioned, it is a valid item of my opponents debate to question. There has been no distorting of arguments here.
Secondly, no where did I attack my opponent in person. I urge the audience to decide for themselves whether I attacked my opponent, as it is not apparent to myself.
To conclude this debate, I would like to reiterate a few points. Throughout this debate, I have raised valid problems with my opponents arguments. These have been in the form of fallacies. Each of these fallacies contribute to a bad argument. An argument with at least one fallacy is a fallacious argument.
I have shown inconsistencies in my opponents Bible Maths. The mathematics my opponent has presented is not only inconsistent with itself, but also with the exact words and phrases of Genesis chapter one. As the mathematics did not objectively reflect the text, I conclude that my opponents interpretation is inaccurate.
I urge the audience to vote with an open mind. Review what has been presented, review my opponents initial video and each round of the debates. If you believe that I, the Con have presented a more compelling argument, then vote for myself. If you believe that the Pro has presented a more compelling argument, then vote for Pro.
I thank my opponent for his "unique" debating style and wish him luck in the conclusion of this debate.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|