[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Some things may be measurable just not measurable by us at present.


[/ QUOTE ]

Even so the future standard would still be a standard. And it would exist now waiting for us to discover. But atheists deny even the possibility of such a standard.

[ QUOTE ]

Even taking your definition at face value does not preclude the possibility of mathematics having the property of capability of independent existence. The obvious counterexample is that of God creating something with the property of henceforth being able to exist independently of him: God could have created mathematics as a permanent and immutable framework which would be capable of existing even in his absence.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree but even if true by your own words it was created by God thus not independently existing. That is, it wasn't eternal but contingent and to become it needed God.

[ QUOTE ]

Alternatively, if God does not exist, these frameworks might still exist.


[/ QUOTE ]

I consider this on the same order as a square circle. If God exists then it's impossible to speak of existence apart from Him. To do so requires the assumption that He doesn't exist. It's a paradox, or really a contradiction. You have to assume the impossible - once you do that you destroy all foundation for existence itself.

[ QUOTE ]

Perhaps then every act that ever occurred could be assigned a measurement based on its morality and spirituality.


[/ QUOTE ]

But you would still need a standard, an "ought". You still couldn't get it empirically, from what "is", or in this case "was".