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.

>>13
(almost) all Abrahamic religions say that about other Abrahamic religions. extrapolating Abrahamic concepts into all religions that exist and have existed is pretty stupid, because many of the similarities come from the fact that Abrahamic religions have the same root that isn't shared by others.