• Pascal used probability/expected-value reasoning to argue that wagering on God is rational.
• Gödel formally encoded an argument for God's existence in higher-order modal logic.
• Plantinga uses modal logic to formulate the ontological argument.
• Bayes’ theorem used to argue for the existence of God by Richard Swinburne.

People use math to justify things. That is not the same as proving something. Show me cases where econs use math to prove something intrinsic to economies.

In the bible one plus one plus one equals one or three or something.

Except in terms of predictive power it's just barely more successful than random chance. As a discipline it's still largely in its most primitive stage, and still full of unproven and largely hypothetical assumptions that amount to little more than idle musings and superstitions. It's so full of holes it's just slightly more rigorous than pseudoscience. Perhaps in 100 years it will develop into a more respectable discipline, but at this stage it's at best a tool for short term modelling and post hoc analysis.

in my experience, Econ education is the study of a single economic system - capitalism. Did they ever discuss alternative socioeconomic systems or simply say 'state ownership = bad'?

it uses math to explain it

It uses math sometimes.

Economics is not a hard science. Which is fine. But let's not pretend it's all math and logic. It includes attempting to predict human behavior, you can't do that with just math.

"Do people think we're currently in a recession" is actually used by economists as a recession indicator.

Economics is the social control mechanism that filled the void vacated by religion after the enlightenment.

Finance replaced mythology. Banks and financial institutions replaced churches and cathedrals. Economists replaced the clergy. GDP replaced God.

Mathematics is the foundation of reality, accounting is a selective subset of mathematics.

Economics is functionally religion that wears a tattered robe of finance which is patched with parts of accounting that economists find useful to support the doctrine of their particular model.

Like religion, economics can prove useful for a society, but similarly it has no intrinsic legitimacy imposing influence on or over those who don’t willingly and non-coercively subscribe to its narrative.

I think you may need to simply define the terms used after "calculus." I just did two things that oddly coincide with having read this comment. One, skipped a YT video that promised to simply explain calculus, and two, commented elsewhere:

"One thing that really scares me about the fall of the empire of my birth is, even if a revolution succeeded, not only who would be in charge, but would they actually understand large scale administration, distribution, logistics, of goods and finance? We've allowed ourselves to be so proudly uneducated for si long, because "There are professionals for that." Well, yes, but honest ones?“

Edit, because I should add, an honest one that actually will be appointed to the task.