The Bible Math Presented By The Preachatician Is An Accurate Interpretation

My opponent distorts my argument by changing the subject of my argument from ‘the Holy Bible that is presented mathematically' to ‘the genus of the class-constant 1581.13883.' Red Herring! Although the two subjects look alike we see the class-constant ‘the Holy Bible' becomes the variable term ‘genus' and the variable term ‘math' becomes the class-constant ‘1581.13883'. This is called ‘the cloning fallacy' and the cloning fallacy occurs when both a variable (ANY) and a class-constant term (ALL) are presented as one another in both the major and minor premises and commits a red herring. Please note the following as a disjunction my opponent's position presents: The variable term ‘genus' does not represent ‘the Holy Bible' accurately---which rather as a the disjunction would present my argument concerning only the variable term ‘1581.13883'. Also, the LOGICAL ADDITION (a. k. a., conjunction) of the fact that the variable term ‘1581.13883' is not the class-constant of the genus ‘Holy Bible' is an inaccurate representation of my thesis, therefore attacking me the person who happens to have presented a true proposition prior to this Con's assertion of the argument. 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, . . . " 1. SUBJECT-TIME (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)].