PHeMoX,
Thats quite a list of errors for us to engage all at once.
"There are things in our reality that become laws or rules because we agreed upon how things work within a system. Red is red because we agreed upon it.. it could have been named blue."
This is obviously a false ananlogy; comparing a necessary abstract law with an arbitrary unnecessary name given to a particular physical entity.
Here is your second error:
"In math, as it's perhaps the easiest thing to explain a certain kind of logic with, 2 and 2 added together makes 4 basically because we agreed upon it."
So we could all agree then that 2 plus 2 would equal 5 and it would? Come on now.
Here is a small sample of your "law giving":
"logic is mainly about argumentative thoughts and principles" Maybe you can elaborate on this 'metaphysical principle'. Do our thoughts create logic or does logic create our thoughts? Then there is this jewel "It sounds more self verifying that it really is, as in the end it is a simple choice of framework." So it sounds self verifying but it really is a simple choice? Are all arbitrary 'simple choices' self verifying? I think you are trying to say that different fields of 'science' carry with them self verifying "logics" to evaluate inter-field hypothesis. So that you would not proceed to prove barometric pressure the exact same way you would prove blood pressure. This of course doesn't answer intra-field varience evaluation (the laws of meteorology will not be found to contradict the laws of biology where they might cross and so forth). You see the application of logic is universal and invarient and absolute. Plus your inference here is that the laws of logic arise from physical laws. The laws of logic in this view are based on the inherent property of a thing. A thing is what it is and has the properties it has and we generalize our observations into 'laws'. Of course the problem of induction would here destroy logic of any sort (making lunacy equal to logic as I already stated). Plus the law of identity 'whatever is- is' would be associated with the conclusion that there can be no change (whatever is- would change). So this would contradict evolution. But who cares since the law of contradiction is only probable to occur.
This helps to understand why you conclude things like "so I do not understand why you think the Bible could even 'account for' logic when it clearly can not". It is not suprising that you cannot see the solution found in the bible, you fail to apprehend the problem. Your tiny little bit of philosophy you explain here and live by (your bible) is so full of contradiction and arbitrary assumption you need to repent for slandering the bible.
You ended with this statement:
"Again, even the most overwhelming complexity of things is still no indication for a divine origin," -Your post makes this clear!