If I can make a logical pattern with the elements of a problem which is better than what I had before attempting it, then I've "solved" it.
At least for now.

Math is appropriating the qualities of form so as to make generalizations about their interactions.
Like saying W=wisdom, l=love, and s=speech, then I could say W(l,s)=Wl+Ws.
Here wisdom acts as a qualitative change of l and s together.
Or, W(l,s)=Wl*Ws.
In this way wisdom act as a multiplier, but it could get trickier if wisdom acted as both a multiplier and a qualitative change.
So I could ask how I could represent that.

The difference is that wisdom has no physical representative.
Whereas stating V, a smooth vector space, has elements (e1,...,en) automatically gives a representation.
Functions onto this space would be characterized both by its definition and representation, much like the term "running".
What seems difficult is adding more and more verbs together to form other verbs, where these verbs have a whole list of what is included.
Also, why would two different symbols, like walk and run, have similar qualities?
Or, why would two similar definitions, like escort and escrow, have different meanings?
Thus, although math is said to be a universal language, it still is a nuanced language, and the number of years and hours spent learning it is directly related to its familiarity.

Differential manifolds are like levels of a video game where the character levels up their weapon upon arriving on each new level.

Even math geniuses can't know what an equation means without telling what its variables stand for.

When reading math makes sense, it cannot be put into words truly.
But when writing proofs in symbols, it cannot take place of language either.
However, without combining symbology and language, I won't be able to comprehend.

I have faith that God exists, but it borders on opinion.
It is either a secondary subjective opinion from say a Prophet or believer, or it is a first-hand subjective feeling of the presence of God which is like faith (as Kant defined opinion and faith).
I would say that God is not objective knowledge, though objectivity can be applied to It.

Then by what is meant by soul is subjectivity.
All gods are imperfect.
To make perfection a god is to separate it from life.
Therefore, God is as a zero orbit to which perfections are a decreasing in number (to the number brain).
For to give God an outer boundary would be to deny the universe, and to give God a lower boundary would proclaim zero degrees Kelvin.
Therefore, God is a limit, but for which all my soul's life or lives can never reach.
Prophets merely remind me that science involves different universes and that my subjectivity will never come to an end.
Just as energy can never be destroyed or created.
The Eastern Avatars are here to remind me that my subjectivity has had no beginning inasmuch that I can only progress from rereading history.

The crux of the argument is that once coherence is reached, it is met with more chaos.
Thus, the book of atheism is neverending just as the concept of a perfect god will never be attained or eliminated.

But what of truth?
Shall it not always remain both objective and subjective?
(Alchemists always believe in a baseless bridge.)

Atheism is the highest form of divine reason.