Ironically, the existence of consistent mathematical laws derived from thousands of years of experimentation and observation is probably the most compelling argument for intelligent design, more so than any holy book.
Respectfully but strongly disagree. At its very core, math is based on logic which would be valid even without the existence of us or the universe. Things like “if a is false, and b is false, then the conditions a and b and a or b must both also be false; but if a is true and b is false, then the condition of a and b is still false but a or b is true.” Statements like that are what the simplest axioms are derived from, and everything else in math in turn. For example, from the previous statements one can derive that “if a is false and b is false, then both b and c and a and c must also be false regardless of the value of c; but if b or c is true and we know that b is false, then c must be true.” Doesn’t take a god to figure that out, it just is. Math tells you nothing about any sort of higher power or creator, nor does it prove the absence of a higher power or creator.
There’s no experimentation involved in the rules of Maths - they are a natural consequence of the way we have defined things to begin with. e.g. 2x3 is shorthand for 2+2+2, hence you must do multiplication before addition or you get the wrong answer. Also equations as we know them - with an equals sign, etc. - have only been around for less than 600 years
Ironically, the existence of consistent mathematical laws derived from thousands of years of experimentation and observation is probably the most compelling argument for intelligent design, more so than any holy book.
Respectfully but strongly disagree. At its very core, math is based on logic which would be valid even without the existence of us or the universe. Things like “if
ais false, andbis false, then the conditionsa and banda or bmust both also be false; but ifais true andbis false, then the condition ofa and bis still false buta or bis true.” Statements like that are what the simplest axioms are derived from, and everything else in math in turn. For example, from the previous statements one can derive that “ifais false andbis false, then bothb and canda and cmust also be false regardless of the value ofc; but ifb or cis true and we know thatbis false, thencmust be true.” Doesn’t take a god to figure that out, it just is. Math tells you nothing about any sort of higher power or creator, nor does it prove the absence of a higher power or creator.Also, math is fundamentally incomplete and never will be complete.
What, how?
Self consistent systems do not imply design, imo. There has to be a certain level of self consistency for any entity to exist?
Intelligent design maybe, but at the very least the possibility of higher existence or beings.
There’s no experimentation involved in the rules of Maths - they are a natural consequence of the way we have defined things to begin with. e.g. 2x3 is shorthand for 2+2+2, hence you must do multiplication before addition or you get the wrong answer. Also equations as we know them - with an equals sign, etc. - have only been around for less than 600 years