"God is illogical.

Omnipotency is a stone too heavy to lift. Omnibenevolence is a just the calm before an earthquake. Omniscience makes us autmatons with no choice in our lives.

That doesn't mean he can't exist."

You're making a burlesque. Consider, perfect, perfectio, means for the Scholastics, e.g., the ripe apple. Omnipotence for Thomas = god can not make a triangle whose angles do not add up to those of two right angles. Limited by the potentia ordinata. etc... Don't add unnecessary fancifulness.

By which I mean, not in order to read the Scholastics properly, but in order to investigate the matter oneself, their model is useful for preparing. Since it is not naive at all, but deep and large with experience in life, heart, ears & thought!

What Galileo said, if I’m not wrong.... — InternetStranger

That quote I gave is well-known and verbatim. But, very interesting post, and I thank you for it, although there are points I would take issue with, time permitting.

Maybe it is verbatim, but the meaning is lost. He's not speaking of maths as such, but about maths of motion: mechanics. His whole philosophy (physics) was based on the inertial frame of reference thought experiment. Based on projecting it onto the book of the universe. Newton follows this protective style, leading to the claim that there is nothing beyond the senses in question in the foundation of the new, thereby assumed to be non-metaphysical, physics.

Galileo ‘The book of nature is written in mathematics’

Maybe it is verbatim, but the meaning is lost — InternetStranger

The meaning is crystal clear and fundamental to the modern scientific conception of nature. Furthermore it was clearly grounded in his conception of Plato's dianoia, which he accepted provided the kind of certainty higher than sensory perception. It was very much a consequence of the rediscovery of Plato in the Italian Renaissance. (A basic text on this is E A Burtt, Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science.)

This doesn't persuade me at all. I'm with what I've already stated.

Math is not usually about motion. So, one must say mechanics. This prepares for the calculus. Galileo made a thought experiment, about the vacuum where things meeting no resistance will keep going. This is like in Plato where one thinks of the genus, say of a tree. They simply say, it's not in the senses, cant be. Mathimatikos doesn't mean the same thing in ancient Greek as math does in current usage. It includes the ideas, reliable for-knowledge. What Galileo did is superimpose it on the world totality. The ancients never did that.

Your authority is incompetent.

Math is not usually about motion. — InternetStranger

So - what does your speedometer display?

The speed.

In numbers, I presume. Or does yours use some other method.

In numbers.

Good Day. I am new to the forum. Below my humble opinion.

God by nature of recorded history and still largely followed by masses has always been either a termed “being” or a “state of being” that relates to an inherent connection to stimulate the human mind towards a direction of “wanting” and this forces retrospection as this would be the destination of the library of references to form understanding for the self that makes sense. The reference to “God” is the very scapegoat vehicle human psychology is using to bring “deeper understanding and meaning to the ever drive to search enlightenment to make sense” in terms of delving deeper to the highest and deepest rooted frames of references to which definition can be allocated just to make some sense. Questioning towards the idea of believe, relevance and religion is to challenge the limits of the internal frames of reference that makes up the existence of consciousness. Thus the definition of “God” is the internal limitations in the interpersonal frames of reference that makes sense, even if any concepts of “Omni-“be applied or adopted. The very existence of the Omni- concepts in your frames of reference make it part of the existent limitations in frames of reference own to your consciousness.