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.

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.

the problem with this statement is that, from a strictly logical perspective, it has many hidden assumptions that are contradicted through basic knowledge of philosophy and world's religions:
- the assumption that there's only one possible God (what if your're are christian but it's muslims who are right and you get punished anyway?)
- the assumption that God will reward or punish people solely based on their beliefs (what if there's no judgment, or it's based on something completely different - possibly something you can't predict?)
- the assumption that belief in a non-existent entity is without consequences (what if we assume, like some ancient philosophers, that finding truth is a virtue in itself?)
- the assumption that faith based on fear will be rewarded (what if God wants to be loved? or just hates cowards?)
- the assumption that whether you believe in something or not is a rational choice (what if you accept all the assumptions above and on the surface try to convince your're are self to believe, but deep down inside still think that God doesn't exist)