Note I'm skimming over things because I think we are talking past each other about things that don't strike to the heart of our conversation. If there is anything in particular that I have skipped that you'd like me to comment on, let me know.

> You might as well be saying that "The sky is blue" was a meaningful sentence before English was invented.

You're not distinguishing between propositions and sentences.

"John is a bachelor" and "John is an unmarried man" are different sentences, but they express the same proposition. "Snow is white" and "Schnee ist weiss" are also different sentences--one is English, the other German--but they too express the same proposition. "The sky is blue" was not a meaningful sentence before English was invented, but the proposition it expresses was true before English was invented. Sentences that are claims about reality are labels for propositions. "2", "two, and "II" are just labels we use to talk about the number 2.

To rephrase your boil down of my argument:

"We use mathematics to [label propositions that] describe physical reality. Physical reality with the patterns that [are described by propositions, we now label with mathematics,] existed before we existed. Therefore, [propositions, we now label with mathematics,] existed before we existed."

"And analogously:"

"We use English to [label propositions that] describe physical reality. Physical reality with the patterns that [are described by propositions, we now label with English,] existed before we existed. Therefore, [propositions, we now label with English,] existed before we existed."

> So, you can't use the testable patterns to demonstrate the existence of untestable abstract ideas.

What evidence do you have that establishes this as true?

>> A) If potential states of the universe do not exist, then the universe can't change states

> Could you define what you mean by the word "exist"?

To have objective reality or being.

>> C) If potential states of the universe are physical, then potential states of the universe would be observable hear and now.

> I can not observe the contents of your screen here and now. Does that mean that your screen is not physical?

Fair. Omit the words "here and now" from all of my statements.

>> E) Potential states of the universe are not actual and potential at the same time.

> So, the universe does not exist? (You defined "potential" as "possible", so if a state can not be actual and potential at the same time, all actual states are impossible, hence there is no state for the universe to be in, thus the universe can not exist, right?)

I did not define "potential" as "possible", I defined it as "possible state". I did not say "a state can not be actual and potential at the same time", I said "Potential states of the universe are not actual and potential at the same time".

> Overall, I suspect this is all one big exercise in false equivocation, but we'll first have to nail down some definitions and details before I can put my finger on it.

Sure, and I am more than willing to clean up how I am phrasing things if need be.

>> How might you respond to a rephrasing such as "It is immoral to <X>"?

> Assuming I didn't agree, I would probably ask you for the evidence to support that claim.

> If you were to object that asking for evidence for moral claims is a category error (which I suspect is where you are going with this), I would ask you to define "morality".

Correct. I would say it is a category error to seek out evidence for a moral claim itself. I would not say it is a category error to seek out evidence for why the moral claim should be accepted as true.

Morality: Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

>> "God is a trinity of three divine persons each fully possessing one divine nature."

> Does this god have any observable effects in physical reality?

Absolutely.