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.

>>12
The symbols used in math represent something, one must assume that others know what they represent if one wishes to use them. This inherent assumption does not prove that math is wrong or bad. A mathematical symbol is based less on an "axiom" and more on a "definition" which is why a man could misinterpret a mathematical symbol if he didn't know the definition.

To act as though God is real and hell/heaven can mean different things to different people. How exactly does that undermine the logic of the thought experiment? You either act as though these things are not real and go to hell if they are, or you do the opposite and go to heaven if they are. It doesn't matter if you are Catholic or protestant, as long as you can apply logic you can see the wisdom in this. At no point do we discuss what it means to act as though God exists, we simply observe that belief in God is a logical necessity.

You are claiming that post-modern cultural relativity somehow negates the logic of math and God, as though logic is merely an "assumption" of "old white men" and not a pure truth. This much is certain.