The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

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.” Strawman Fallacy 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. 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.” 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: “All arguments that ADT_Clone does not understand are arguments that make no sense.”. 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. Inconsistent evidence My opponent uses a passage from Bertrand Russell. He presents Bertrand Russell’s original argument as follows: P1: ‘Socrates is a man’ P2: ‘Socrates is mortal’ C: ‘Socrates is a man implies Socrates is mortal' He then uses his definitions to come to the conclusion that: “Heavens and Earth are creations by God implies Heavens and Earth are 1581.13883” 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’.” [1] 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. Closing argument 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 2. Constant values that are represented by symbols 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. References (1) http://fair-use.org...