PB: "He is on a mission to prove all this maths. But ok. Then who created this maths? Obviously God. But he still worships Satan."

This is the "logic" of Abrahamists. Given this exact logic, who made God?

Mathematics is uncaused, uncreated, eternal, necessary and compulsory. It inherently reflects the eternal truths of reason. No one can make mathematics. Mathematics, by contrast, makes everyone and everything, i.e. all contingent, temporal things.

The error committed by this person: the error of theism. This person cannot conceive of anything other than a Super Sky Wizard as being uncaused and uncreated. He is totally irrational.

As our books prove, the Principle of Sufficient Reason can be used to show how mathematics is eternal, necessary and compulsory. No such exercise can be conducted with regard to a theistic God, a wholly irrational and indefinable entity. God's advocates seek to make the "mystery" of God his greatest strength. In fact, it is his greatest weakness. Anything that cannot be defined cannot exist. Only mathematics can provide true definitions.

*****

BLS: "Math is merely the language of the universe, it is not itself the universe."

The universe IS the language of mathematics. To state that the universe is one thing, and its language is another thing is to create an untenable Cartesian dualism. How can the language of mathematics communicate and interact with the universe, and be used by the universe, if the universe is anti-mathematical, if the universe is ontologically something different from mathematics?

If the universe is not mathematical, how could it understand mathematics, and how could it create mathematics in order to use it? Nothing that is non-mathematical can invent mathematics. That is a category error.

The error committed by this person: he is unable to conceive that language IS reality, that we live in a coded universe, that the mathematical code of existence underlies EVERYTHING.

*****

HIE: "The Tao that is named is not the real Tao."

The Tao that is NOT named is mystical gibberish, devoid of meaning. Anything that cannot be defined is vacuous and empty of content. A rational universe cannot accommodate anything irrational and miraculous.

The error committed by this person: he believes that the answer to existence is mystical and indefinable. But this is no answer at all since no one can ever state it. It is literal nonsense. This person celebrates being irrational, and being unable to provide rational definitions. If the answer to the universe cannot be defined then the universe has no answer. A universe without an answer is a miracle, and only the irrational believe in miracles.

*****

YP: "Being a scientist, I was aware of the maths. But this knowledge leads to... what?"

It leads to the ultimate paradigm shift and the ability to create a grand unified, final theory of everything. Of course, scientists don't want an answer to the universe. That's why they are obsessed with observation rather than reason and logic, with phenomena rather than noumena. The vast majority of reality is invisible to our limited human senses, but not to our reason and logic.

The error committed by this person: she is guilty of scientism. She believes that mathematics is unreal and that the limited, unreliable, fallible, delusional human senses determine reality. They do not. You cannot learn about what came before humanity by pandering to human foibles. Man is not the measure of all things. Mathematics is. Mathematics is eternal. Nothing preceded mathematics. Every truth of mathematics today was exactly the same infinitely long ago, and will be exactly the same infinitely far in the future. No one can refute that simple fact. Its implications are mind boggling, and go to the core of the nature of existence.

*****

LC: "If I have to use mathematical formulas, I'm done for! I refuse to believe that. I cannot understand math, never have."

Reality is not determined by your "understanding" of reality, or by what you want reality to be, or not be. If you can't understand math, that's your problem, not reality's problem. You can't make it reality's problem!

*****

People need to stop believing their own propaganda, their "own truths", and start using reason and logic to understand the actual Truth. Reason and logic take you straight to ontological mathematics, the functional expression of the PSR.

Without

Religious people try to explain reality without any reference to philosophy, science or mathematics. They talk about their feelings, their subjective experiences, their mystical opinions, their faith, what they heard a guru say, or what they read in some ancient "holy" book - long since refuted by modern knowledge. These are Mythos people. It's pointless trying to reason with them. If they knew anything about reason, they would not be Mythos people. They would be Logos people.

Philosophers try to explain reality without any reference to science or mathematics. They present ingenious arguments, but even they have realized they are getting nowhere, and have now deferred to science.

Scientists try to explain reality without any reference to philosophy, even though science is itself a philosophy, namely the philosophy of materialism and empiricism, with an experimental method attached, and rationalist mathematics, which is perversely considered "unreal" despite being essential to all scientific claims regarding scientific realism.

Mathematicians rarely try to explain reality. Most regard mathematics as a form of logic, or say it is a "game", or an abstract syntax, or some transcendent reality that we can never properly apprehend.

Ontological mathematics combines mathematics with physics and metaphysics and thus creates the ultimate, unsurpassable intellectual vehicle for explaining reality. It does everything philosophy can't do on its own, everything science can't do on its own, and everything that mathematics - as popularly conceived - can't do on its own. In doing so, it provides a full rational explanation of religion in terms of God, the soul, and the afterlife.

Clearly, any subject that addresses ultimate reality - and only ontological mathematics does so - MUST be able to explain all religious and spiritual issues, since these are a fundamental aspect of ultimate reality. Science, by contrast, deals only with material, temporal issues, hence can say nothing valid about religion or spirituality. Its traditional approach is simply to deny that anything exists beyond time, space and matter, and to invoke randomness, chance, accident, uncertainty, probability, emergence and indeterminism to "explain" anything that might seem to contradict its paradigm. It's like a child that shuts its eyes and believes that the external world thereby ceases to exist. The world doesn't need to be seen by you in order to exist. It doesn't need to be observable, or empirical.

*****

Note how none of these people use reason and logic. They simply make unfounded assertions, which they take to be self-evident and unassailable, but which we have demonstrated are wildly illogical and irrational.

These are all Dunning-Kruger types, and the world is full of them, which is why humanity is so alienated from the rational, logical Truth of reality. Social media groans under the weight of their self-regarding bullshit. They take their beliefs, opinions and conjectures to be indisputably true, yet they are all indisputably false. They are the enemies of the Truth.

If you want the real Truth, read our illuminated books, especially the God Series and the Truth Series. Most people have spent no time at all pondering their beliefs, and would be wholly incapable of writing even 1,000 words to defend their position. By contrast, we have written 13 million words to prove our position, and everything we say is anchored by the ultimate principle of existence ... the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which is expressed ontologically as mathematics. The PSR is mathematically equivalent to Euler's Formula, and Euler's Formula defines the mathematical monads (eternal minds) from which reality is made.

Everything done by monads has a sufficient reason, whether in terms of ontological syntax or ontological semantics. Science concerns itself only with syntax and eliminates meaning (semantics). Religion concerns itself only with semantics and eliminates structure (syntax). Ontological mathematics addresses both: structure and meaning, syntax and semantics.

No one who has read all of our illuminated books could possibly doubt what we say. We have gone to immense and unprecedented trouble to refute every rival system, and prove our own using reason and logic. Anyone who argues with us is simply proving that that they are irrational and illogical, hence have no valid contribution to make to knowledge and Truth.

The Bottom Line

Here's the simple bottom line. Reality either has a rational answer, or it doesn't. If it does, you cannot use anything other than the PSR and its ontological expression, mathematics, to discover it. You can't use human beliefs, feelings, experiences, or opinions, and you can't use the limited human senses.

If reality doesn't have a rational answer then it has no answer since every irrational answer is as irrational as every other, and there is no rational means to choose one over another, so believe whatever you like.

Isn't it funny how many people try to use "rational" arguments to refute the fact that existence is made of mathematics, the quintessence of rationalism? How can you use reason to refute reason? That's how deluded and irrational these people are. They regard empirical arguments as rational arguments. They are nothing of the kind. They are committing a category error when they introduce semantics into a syntactic argument, when they introduce semantic empirical arguments into the domain of syntactic rationalism.

Reality concerns either a single Absolute Truth (reason), or "all truths" (unreason), where everyone can believe anything that floats their boat. The latter is exactly the path humanity has chosen. Everywhere, you come across the claim that everyone has "their own truth." This is of course wholly false. There is only one Truth and infinite lies. Are you one of the few who can separate Truth from lies?

You're either on the side of reason, or you're not. If you're on the side of reason, you won't base any arguments on faith, mysticism, or empiricism. You won't cite your feelings, your mystical intuitions, or your sense perceptions. Sadly, that's all that people do on social media. It's almost impossible to encounter a rational argument on social media.

If you're on the side of reason, you will give absolute primacy to mathematics and the Principle of Sufficient Reason. They, after all, are what reason is ontologically all about.