That algebraic (underlined) statement can be 'true' for either the person who believes in God, or the person who doesn't believe in God, simply because what it says, can be demonstrated as being true by way of the rules of logic (alegbra) and by way of being consistent with scientific objective test evidence.The problem is that someone here keeps insisting that God made all the rules of math, and that there would be no rules of math if God hadn't done that. That person is wrong. I cited one example of a rule of math that has to be true regardless of whether a God exists:
2 + 2 <> 53567
Do you or do you not agree that this rule exists, even if God does not exist? If this rule exist even if God does not exist, then we have shown that person to be wrong when he tells us all laws of math come from God.
The existence of 'God' however can happen, when the word existence is based on faith (or beliefs).
No .. that latter (underlined) statement is not consistent with objective test evidence. You see, that hypothetical 'someone' has to be doing the counting and therefore there is a person is present (or is implied) as being there, doing the counting.doubtingmerle said:Quantities exist regardless of people or Gods, yes? On distant galaxies there are distinct counts of bodies, ratios, shapes, etc. So surely you must agree with me that quantities exist without people being there.
'Quantities' is a model. Its our description. It conveys a meaning which we assigned to that word. Its therefore a human model.
No .. you got that part right. But for some reason, you exclude all the other human models (eg: like 'quantities'). That's inconsistency.doubtingmerle said:And number systems are manmade. That is obviously so. Are you disagreeing that the decimal system, for instance, was made by people?
There's no reason to exclude the person who makes that (rather bizarre) claim.doubtingmerle said:Are you really, truly trying to argue that sometimes 2+2=10?
They're still humans and they can be shown to exist. Whereas your view just cancels them out .. for some strange reason.
Show me the objective test (and its evidence) which specifically excludes human minds, in order to substantiate your claim there. Good luck!doubtingmerle said:There was a distinct quantity of stars long before people were around to count.
Well no .. I recall there was a long stretch where the planets were wandering stars attached to some kind of rotating spheres, (or the like), and moved in circles around the Earth. The term 'orbit' changed its meaning from that to 'eliptical' around Kepler's time. 'Orbits' is therefore a definitional model, which is subject to change with new evidence. How could that change in 'what an orbit is', possibly happen in your 'world' where the orbits were always eliptical? (Or are you just going to ignore the evidence of that change in meaning process, as though that plays no role in informing us of 'what an orbit is'?)doubtingmerle said:Planets moved in elliptical orbits long before anybody knew what an ellipse was.
Math is a formalised axiomatic system for tracking consistency with its axiomatic 'truths'.doubtingmerle said:These mathematical relations were true long before anybody discovered how to express human math. Human math is just a way for us to state the mathematical relationships that are already existing in the world.
The time element you rely on there however, comes from science's testable, (and well tested) definition of what time is.
The combination of those above two human invented elements, underwrite your claim there and I have no problems with moving forward on that basis.
There is no evidence that either of them 'truly exist' independently of the human fingerprints left all over both of them. The only way that can happen, is if you completely ignore that abundant evidence, or just believe that.