The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

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; 2. great importance or consequence 3. moral greatness [1] 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) [2] 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 ) [3] 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 b) The content of the verse 1:3. 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. Summary 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 2. His mathematical formula fully covered all elements of the text and 3. His choice of mathematical symbols and the use of their constants are consistent with the text. If my opponent can not address these general, and my specific cases, then it can be concluded that his interpretation is inaccurate without challenge. References (1) http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) http://en.wikipedia.org... (3) http://scienceworld.wolfram.com...