The sun gives light and life to the World. Every winter, it dies on the cross for three days and is thus resurrected. Since time immemorial people have worshipped the sun.
Math, on the other hand, is literally the reason our atoms hold together. It’s the reason the planets form. It’s ubiquitous and ineffable, tying together the universe in ways we do not understand.
Calling common things of nature “God” is just adding unnecessary complexity and trying to give purpose to what has none. Things don’t exist to serve us, we adapted to these things for us to exist.
About the “math god”, math doesn’t hold the atoms together, it just explains it.
The first religions worshipped the sun. The figureheads of most major religions are stand-ins for the sun, including Jesus Christ.
Additionally I’d argue that religion exists expressly to give purpose. Regardless of whether or not God exists, the fact that human beings look to God alone should be proof of that.
So you’re just redefining God. That’s fine, but it’s not helpful in a discussion where people assume by default you’re using a common definition of God.
The sun gives light and life to the World. Every winter, it dies on the cross for three days and is thus resurrected. Since time immemorial people have worshipped the sun.
Math, on the other hand, is literally the reason our atoms hold together. It’s the reason the planets form. It’s ubiquitous and ineffable, tying together the universe in ways we do not understand.
Calling common things of nature “God” is just adding unnecessary complexity and trying to give purpose to what has none. Things don’t exist to serve us, we adapted to these things for us to exist.
About the “math god”, math doesn’t hold the atoms together, it just explains it.
The first religions worshipped the sun. The figureheads of most major religions are stand-ins for the sun, including Jesus Christ.
Additionally I’d argue that religion exists expressly to give purpose. Regardless of whether or not God exists, the fact that human beings look to God alone should be proof of that.
So you’re just redefining God. That’s fine, but it’s not helpful in a discussion where people assume by default you’re using a common definition of God.