Is math tardy?

What I don't understand is why "scientists" can claim that equations offer proof or validity to a "theory" yet these same tards claim that "if God doesn't exist believing in him has no consequence but if he does exist not believing in him has terrible consequences" isn't proof that God exists and must be believed in.

But how can that be? Both equations and this kind of phraseology are self-referential logic games that don't require input from reality, if you believe one represents truth and the other represents word games then you are massively tardy.

Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical.

not really. mathematical symbols are defined in strict terms. of course, all the definitions are based on axioms, but axioms are not a religious dogma and constructing theories on non-standard axioms is valid mathematical practice (see non-Euclidean geometry for entry-level approach to this)

all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented.

not really. take the example of Pascal's wager (which you started the thread with) - it makes sense with protestantism (because it is based on 'sola fide' - the idea that salvation comes from faith alone), funnily enough (despite Pascal being catholic) makes a bit less sense with catholicism (because it assumes that faith is necessary but not enough to be saved) and does not make sense with interpretations of christianity which claim universal salvation (or even just have a 'noble heathen' concept)

you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God.

I do not claim cultural relativity. I claim that religion is more complex than binary choice of God vs no God. maybe try arguing with what I'm saying instead of what you imagine I'm saying, anus Edited on 24/05/2019 09:42.

>Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical. 
Mathematical symbols could, to one who didn't have prior knowledge of their meaning, appear to have any number of meanings. Realistically one must "assume" that the viewer of an equation knows the accepted meaning of the symbols presented, to do otherwise is simply not practical.
not really. mathematical symbols are defined in strict terms. of course, all the definitions are based on axioms, but axioms are not a religious dogma and constructing theories on non-standard axioms is valid mathematical practice (see non-Euclidean geometry for entry-level approach to this)
>all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented. 
all "branches" believe in the same God and have the same framework and can thus easily understand the logic presented.
not really. take the example of Pascal's wager (which you started the thread with) - it makes sense with protestantism (because it is based on 'sola fide' - the idea that salvation comes from faith alone), funnily enough (despite Pascal being catholic) makes a bit less sense with catholicism (because it assumes that faith is necessary but not enough to be saved) and does not make sense with interpretations of christianity which claim universal salvation (or even just have a 'noble heathen' concept)
>you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God. ↵
I do not claim cultural relativity. I claim that religion is more complex than binary choice of God vs no God
you are claiming that cultural relativity factors into matters of math or God.↵
I do not claim cultural relativity. I claim that religion is more complex than binary choice of God vs no God. maybe try arguing with what I'm saying instead of what you imagine I'm saying, anus