I like logic, It is the spreadsheet of philosophy. It allows you to look at how the person is organizing their argument. It can be reduced to symbols, manipulated using logical gates, and has been codified, to the point that Principia Mathemathica is now public domain.

THE mathematical treatment of the principles of mathematics, which is the subject of the present work, has arisen from the conjunction of two different studies, both in the main very modern. On the one hand we have the work of analysts and geometers, in the way of formulating and systematising their axioms, and the work of Cantor and others on such matters as the theory of aggregates. On the other hand we have symbolic logic, which, after a necessary period of growth, has now, thanks to Peano and his followers, acquired the technical adaptability and the logical comprehensiveness that are essential to a mathematical instrument for dealing with what have hitherto been the beginnings of mathematics. From the combination of these two studies two results emerge, namely (1) that what were formerly taken, tacitly or explicitly, as axioms, are either unnecessary or demonstrable; (2) that the same methods by which supposed axioms are demonstrated will give valuable results in regions, such as infinite number, which had formerly been regarded as inaccessible to human knowledge. Hence the scope of mathematics is enlarged both by the addition of new subjects and by a backward extension into provinces hitherto abandoned to philosophy.

However, this is now suspect. In many ways. We are not allowed to argue, because the Leftist insist that their axioms cannot be questioned. As if religious belief is a form of mental impairment, and all philosophers, theologians and scientists from Augustine to Pascal are fools.

I disagree with Russell on many things because his model of the world is based on a cartesian plane and classical physics, both of which broke about the time that he finished his magnum opus. (The fact that his book is one of the ur-texts for computer science is another issue), but he is correct on one thing. Axioms have to be questioned. This is what Schaeffer called pre-suppositional discussions: you had to agree on certain assumptions before you could have a serious discussion (such as reality is not a solipsist perception).

Nut this is not acceptable to the SJW. So they want to shut us up. By making laws and axioms up. I see the old school realists rolling in their graves.

Well, yeah. Those who think seriously about these issues now hide in the mathematics department, for the arts departments have become rotten. And the fact that mathematics and logic can describe the world is an example of arguing from nature: moreover arguments from nature have generally led to God from the time of Plato. (Hat tip to Wintry Knight for this)

Whether one is a realist or an anti-realist about mathematical objects, I think that the theist enjoys a considerable advantage over the naturalist in explaining the uncanny success of mathematics.

Take realism first. As philosopher of mathematics Mary Leng points out, for the non-theistic realist, the fact that physical reality behaves in line with the dictates of acausal mathematical entities existing beyond space and time is “a happy coincidence” (Mathematics and Reality [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010], p. 239). Think about it: If, per impossibile, all the abstract objects in the mathematical realm were to disappear overnight, there would be no effect on the physical world. This is simply to reiterate that abstract objects are causally inert. The idea that realism somehow accounts for the applicability of mathematics “is actually very counterintuitive,” muses Mark Balaguer, a philosopher of mathematics. “The idea here is that in order to believe that the physical world has the nature that empirical science assigns to it, I have to believe that there are causally inert mathematical objects, existing outside of spacetime,” an idea which is inherently implausible (Platonism and Anti-Platonism in Mathematics [New York: Oxford University Press, 1998], p. 136).

By contrast, the theistic realist can argue that God has fashioned the world on the structure of the mathematical objects. This is essentially what Plato believed. The world has mathematical structure as a result.

Now consider anti-realism of a non-theistic sort. Leng says that on anti-realism relations said to obtain among mathematical objects just mirror the relations obtaining among things in the world, so that there is no happy coincidence. Well and good, but what remains wanting on secular anti-realism is an explanation why the physical world exhibits so complex and stunning a mathematical structure in the first place. Balaguer admits that he has no explanation why, on anti-realism, mathematics is applicable to the physical world or why it is indispensable in empirical science. He just observes that neither can the realist answer such “why” questions.

By contrast, the theistic anti-realist has a ready explanation of the applicability of mathematics to the physical world: God has created it according to a certain blueprint He had in mind. There are any number of blueprints He might have chosen…

The anti-realistic argument has difficulties: it is fairly standard among Islamic theologians, who emphasize the sovereignty of God, and say that whatever he does is good, and the word exists at his will from minute to minute. This essentialist idea has consequences. Without laws and without the idea of consequences, engineering, analysis, logic itself is immaterial because everything depends on the will of God. But if God made real objects, and keeps his own laws, one then has a different theology: one can question legitimately, as Abraham did when he asked if the ruler of all should not do good, and not evil.

But this is an argument you can have with any but the Taliban and SJW. The Taliban will kill you because you disagree with their most idiotic fatwa, and the SJW will say you are educated and need to check your privilege.

There is a scriptural name for such. They are called fools.