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.

>>9

The "if God doesn't exist..." thought experiment is a well-known idea put forward by a Christian theologian with the "assumption" that one would know it is referring to the Christian concept of God.

the assumption is that christian concept is the only one possible, which is not true. and even if it was, it ignores multiple mutually exclusive branches of christianity. the point is that choice of religion does not map easily into simple two-valued logic because there are too many variables.

You are essentially saying a math equation is illogical because it is ASSUMING that people viewing the equation know what mathematical symbols represent.

what?

This is post-modernity run amuck.

it has nothing to do with post-modernity you retard. pointing out hidden assumptions (and that seemingly logical statements don't hold up without those assumptions) is as old as logic itself