-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The fact that we can do math, proves that math is an intelligent system.If we were to find a complex system like Google, on a remote planet somewhere, we would automatically assume that the system is a sign of intelligence. Even if we couldn't understand how the system works, doesn't take away from the obvious sign of intelligence.
By the same logic: Rocks are some thing that we can analyze, ("doing math" is just a shorthand for analyzing it) and therefore they are an intelligent system. Thus, if we see rocks on a remote planet, we should assume that there is intelligent life there which created those rocks.
Just because something can be analyzed in an intelligent manner doesn't make it analogous to something like Google. The rock could even have many complex and interesting details. That still wouldn't imply the existence of intelligent life.
Yes. What is your point with this.
I was defending my position that math cannot have been created.
So, you admit there is a natural world, and a supernatural world?
You aren't being particularly consistent with your definition of the natural world, but if it is the same as the physical world, then yes, I "admit" the existence of the supernatural world.
Does Morality exist?Does Math exist?Does Time exist?Does Gravity exist?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. Now I'll repeat my question: Why is it that everything in the natural world must be created?
You can if your God.
Even if he can, he never has, and never will. Most people agree that God's omnipotence does not include being able to defy logic itself, but even if you do not agree with this, I would argue that God never has and never will done anything that defies logic. If he ever has or ever will, then truth could not exist in a meaningful way. This is because of a phenomenon known as vacuous truth. If so much as one logical contradiction exists, independent of space, time, etc., then every statement is both true and false. For the following, I will simply use "-" to represent the negation of a proposition (-P means "P is false"). Suppose some logical contradiction exists (once again, regardless of where or when or if it is even within the bounds of space and time). Then P and -P are both true for some proposition P. Suppose Q is any proposition. Then -Q -> P since true propositions are implied by all other propositions. Taking the contra-positive, -P -> Q. But -P is true, so Q is also true. We can apply the same logic to the proposition -Q. It follows that Q is both true and false for any proposition Q.
Well, if God didn't exist, then nothing would exist, because God would have to create everything, so there would be no Mandelbrot set, and no computers, and no humans to type that in, and no math, and nothing.
Which argument for God am I up against exactly?