Gaps in Knowledge Don’t Equate to Absolute Ignorance
What we know and believe deserve to be questioned. We are not omniscient, so we should expect gaps in knowledge. Even our primary source of information, sensory perception, can be distorted or fooled; giving us reason to even doubt that.
The possibility of error only exists because there is a possibility of being right. Without an absolute truth independent of perspective or witness, there can be no correct or incorrect. Without a way to determine what is true from our relative position, all facts would just be agreed upon opinions.
When we find reason to question what we witness or imagine, we turn to logic and math. Logic finds consistency within the information we’ve gathered in order to allow us to draw rational conclusions. Math objectively describes what we witness in order to keep bias out of our assessment of reality.
Ignorance, Imagination, and Inventing God
By definition, a creator would not be composed of, dependent on, or limited by whatever is created. The methods of describing the created would be insufficient in describing the creator. That applies to words and sensory perception, which makes any conversation about origins of existence complicated.
We exist, so it is very hard to fathom a reality devoid of what we need for existence and cognition: space, time, matter, and energy. Imagination can take us places sensory perception can’t, but even it can’t be used to conceptualize reality without the basic components of our existence. These limits in learning have caused every creation theory to begin with the assumption that there is no way to know one way or another whether it be pro, con, or undecided when it comes to God.
Applying logic to the idea of a creator could point to what we should have reason to believe. Instead, it is used to point out the flaws of other attempts without adding any information on the subject. This false dichotomy leaves no room to seek the truth. The options appear to be:
A. Accept the concept of the creator by trying to imagine the unimaginable and personifying unchanging perfection.
or
B. Use our inability to perceive or imagine reality without time, space, matter, and energy as an excuse accept the possibility of measurable things existing for an eternity.
How about we embrace our limits while understanding they do not confine reality? We will never be able to definitively know God in the same way we know anything else. The reason for this also informs us on what God isn’t. That gives us much more insight than trying to shoehorn a creator into its creation.
The Logic Behind a Universal Origin
The ability to be measured, no matter how vague or exact, automatically implies a point of origin and boundary. All measurement begins with a first and there must have previously been none in order to have a first. We must start all relative counts from none because there must have been an absolute none from which its original traits began.
We use the concept of potential infinity for measurable things that can go on indefinitely. This concept is an attempt to separate our limits in cognition from the limits of reality. Instead, it gets conflated to actual infinity, which is without beginning or end, totally immeasurable, and eternal. What seems like a minor issue can cause people to overlook to the contradiction of measurable infinity.
Any attempt to argue against an infinite origin for the finite leads to paradoxes, confusion, and contradiction. Only an appeal to ignorance denies a reality without time, space, matter, and energy. Such a denial would lead to the contradiction of measurable infinity. The only support would be conflating potential infinity with actual infinity because they are both called infinity.
There would be no support for such a denial from math. Zero would only exist in reality as an empty or null value. Its use as the foundational reference point for defining all values and proofs for all equations would be our inventions just because. Even though its discovery revealed it was so necessary we implicitly used it without awareness, we don’t really need it. There is no way to maintain consistent line of reasoning while denying every basis for determining what is true.
Zero in Math and God
So many twists and turns seem so unnecessary when the truth is so simple and consistent. Highlighting zero’s significance in math is not praise for the number or concept. Zero is just a number. As for numbers, it is the least, since it represents none. It being a numerical placeholder isn’t the big deal. What only it can hold a place for is the big deal.
Actual infinity is totally immeasurable because there is no beginning or end, something all measurement has. It is constant, unchanging, and singular. No way of describing it would fit the finite because infinity would have none of the definable attributes, whether it be: positive or negative, partial or whole, rational or irrational, real or imaginary. Zero’s role in math is based on the infinite reality that can only be known by what it is not.
The comparison doesn’t just act as mathematical proof of a logical conclusion based on what we know without even considering any gaps in knowledge or letting them influence what is possible. It also gives a way of understanding the imperceivable and unimaginable. Instead of explaining the importance of zero and allowing the assumption that these traits are my opinion, I invite you to explore what is believed about zero as an absolute value academically without regard to theology.
God is to Reality what Zero is to Math
Every attribute of zero as a foundational reference point for math applies to the general concept of God except those related to imagination and personification. Those who insist on following our flawed tendencies in understanding the creator are aware of the logical fallacies. Reliance on faith is based on the insufficiency of logic to explain God, so those criticisms reinforce the belief.
The cycle of exposing the flaws of opposing views without recognizing the truth within them sustains an unending debate. It is sensible to believe the finite has an infinite origin. It would not make sense to follow the natural tendency to personify and imagine the creator because that would contradict its identity. It is sensible to reject a personified and imaginable creator, but not separating the flawed description from an absolute reality means ignoring what is right.
Instead of using the law of non contradiction to attack what is wrong. Let’s use it to discern what is right. Because it is impossible for measurable things to have an eternal existence, there must be an infinite origin for everything finite. Such a reality would not be perceivable or imaginable. That’s where we turn to math.
If we tried to apply a mathematical value to its attributes, we wouldn’t come up with some advanced concept that could possibly go over people’s heads. The answer would be none. A value so insignificant that it was last to be noticed acts as a foundation for defining value and proving equations because we can only know the origin without the originated.
In order to avoid additional and irrelevant uses for zero polluting understanding its use as the reference point for defining value as illustrated by the number line, I use an analogy that shows how zero as a reference mirrors the infinite origin: God is to reality what zero is to math. What zero is to reality and what zero is to place value have no place in this discussion.
In order to understand the creator without contradiction, all it takes is accepting what is logically sound. You won’t be able to imagine the astounding or relate personally, nor would you feel like you need it. With certainty comes clarity. Intellectual Righteousness is an introduction to thinking logically about God instead of weaponizing it against flawed descriptions of God.
God is to reality what zero is to math is the analogy that can prove God is real but different from what people expect. In the process, it gives us a way to describe God as completely and complimentary as possible. Trust the logic. It is better to know than just believe. Faith fades, but understanding endures.
Leave a Reply