And you know what, that might just very well be true if we’re talking about some supernatural force that is indifferent to its creations, not out of malice, but because it simply is truly neutral.
But as evidence for the religious capital ‘G’ God, the one who communicates and plans every little detail because he loves us so much? What is the point of these “subtle” proofs that took thousands of years to be studied and recorded when he has shown that he can just pop up anywhere or perform miracles and whatever the fuck.
It is no coincidence that the vast majority, possibly 99%, of devout religious people do not give a shit about using math to explain god because it’s all proven in their holy books. It is no coincidence that the “empirical” evidence is, in reality, just pointing at the existence of features and concepts of math and science rather than utilizing said features and concepts to prove the existence of god. And no, philosophical musings about morality using the language of mathematical proofs does not count as utilizing math and science (literally, all the axioms in these types of "proofs" are subjective shit like "bad" and "good" and not, say, the difference between 1 and 0).
And I didn’t even want to make a post dunking on religion, but I’m irritated because YouTube recommended some dumbass video by a channel called “Reformed Zoomer” and one of the arguments is “there is an infinite range of numbers between two numbers, and if we turn those numbers into letters, then every book possible has already been written. Checkmate atheoids”. https://youtu.be/z0hxb5UVaNE?si=RpjF6S0fHiF71iH-
Something along the lines of "Math is separate from the human mind and since it can create infinite information, it would have to be outside of a finite universe, ergo God."
The problem is that Math is most likely a construct used to explain physical properties as opposed to being something inherent to the universe itself. That's why we can do crazy shit like negative square roots and have them still give reasonable answers despite the number itself being impossible. Just because we can create infinite information from a set of rules does not mean all that information is being stored somewhere.
You can't create infinite information from a set of rules. Kolmogorov proved that the true amount of information in a signal is the size of smallest ruleset to produce it. The rest is really just fluff, from an information science perspective.
See: Kolmogorov complexity, and the field of algorithmic information theory.