God is to reality what zero is to math logically defends the concept of an Infinite Origin of the finite against religious personification and atheistic rejection. Because the belief about God is tied to core principles and personal identity, I expect resistance from both sides. Even though the analogy accurately defines and describes the God religion has sought to praise, I’m not too surprised by religious rejection. Reliance on faith assumes logic is insufficient when dealing with God. Since they weren’t convinced through logic, it is nearly impossible to use it to sway them.
I am surprised by the atheistic reaction. Something faith based cannot be debated; logic and math can. Unfortunately, they use education and information to avoid confronting the analogy directly and evade the issue. Even worse, some will act as if the analogy has nothing to do with God. That’s very confusing until I realize the only reason someone would say that is if their understanding of God must be imaginable or have humanlike traits.
Properly Defining God
Even though atheists say they make no claim, they act as if properly defining atheism is key to a debate with theism. If you make no claim, there is no argument against your position. I can only argue for mine. Atheism should never be the focus. What should be the focus is defining what a god is.
Of course, words can have multiple definitions depending on context and history, so their definitions are based on agreement. I don’t know the history of the word “god”, but I do know the Semitic texts Western religion is based on link it to worship. Inanimate objects and what are supposed to be beings are both called gods.
This distinction isn’t just limited to the Semitic idea of God. Worship, not power or personification, is the deciding factor on what’s a deity. In Greek mythology, there are gods and titans. Both possess supernatural power and humanlike traits, but only those that are worshipped are called gods There are plenty of examples of people worshipping forces of nature, animals, geographical landmarks, celestial bodies, and human body parts.
To deify is to give something the status of a god. That status doesn’t require supernatural power or humanlike traits. The only determining factor is a person’s affection high enough to be considered worship.
Worship, Actually
Worship isn’t limited to rituals, either. You pick the religious text claimed to be scripture, and there will be instances of interests or desires becoming or rivaling gods. Statues and stories help people relate to and focus on their object of affection, but worship at its core is simply a prioritization of affection. Everyone worships.
Many people aren’t capable of narrowing their top priority to one, and whatever is most important can be at odds with each other. Throughout history, gods have been used to help detach the idea of their objects of affection from the reality of them. Those who can see the folly reject the idea of gods, but can’t keep from deepening affections or deciding what’s most important. They just have no buffer between their objects of affection and results.
Those who are able to narrow their object of worship to one typically seek the Creator of all that can be witnessed or experienced. People rely on faith in order to believe such a reality exists because there can be no physical or empirical evidence for it. Atheists are right when they say they make no claims because pointing out what the believers already know and accept adds no new insight whatsoever.
No Faith, No Logic
Too bad ancient faith gave people the freedom to imagine and personify instead of making them hold fast to the fact that the Creator would not have any features of the created. Had their faith been true, the discovery of zero would have ended any debate centuries ago. Had atheists been actually using logic against their concepts of God, whether or not there is a Creator would not have been the debate.
The simplest and most logical way to contemplate the Creator would be to eliminate all of the created. Doing that should lead the logical to zero: the necessary foundation that can only be defined through absence; the only accurate expression of infinity since it is none of that which is finite.
Instead of seeing the contradiction of a Creator with created attributes as just cause to challenge the religious for mischaracterizing the Creator, atheists use it to deny the Creator altogether. They demand evidence, but treat math as theory. They act as if perception is most reliable even though our sense can be fooled. That isn’t logical at all.
There is no Better Evidence Than Math
People try to argue that zero and math are man-made in order to dismiss the analogy and act as if it isn’t evidence or proof for God. They imply that what’s true in math isn’t necessarily true in reality. They hope for a gap in knowledge that makes the unreasonable possible. Whether such a gap exists or not doesn’t change what we have reason to conclude.
Math doesn’t impose its truths on reality. It gives objective structure to our descriptions of what we can know about it. Whether what is mathematically true accounts for all of reality or not, it does account for all we can know, understand, explain, or count in reality. The same cannot be said about sensory perception.
Zero’s necessity at math’s foundation points to an Infinite Origin of all that is finite. Zero is the only fitting placeholder for infinity because actual infinity would possess zero finite traits. Because all measurement must have a starting point that begins with none of whatever it is, all empirical evidence is logical evidence of the Infinite Origin.
Opposite Sides of the Same Coin
To act as if I’m not arguing for the same God as the emotional meddler proves you were never arguing against the concept of a Creator of all whenever you were arguing against God. I accept the premise and reject all forms of description that contradict it. You accept the contradictions in order to deny the premise. Without a desire to either imagine or personify the Creator, there is no logical reason for denial.
Rejecting the reality of a Singular and Infinite Origin for all that is finite implies something finite can also be infinite. That is a contradiction. That ain’t logical. The law of conservation is further evidence that neither matter nor energy have the ability to create or destroy. Potential infinity recognizes the possibility of the finite to extending beyond our conceptual or perceptual range.
Logic would lead you to apply all valid math to reality without excluding zero. The only reason for dispute is our inability to perceive or imagine such a reality. That is an appeal to ignorance. That ain’t logical, either. We are finite and can only perceive the finite. Actual infinity has zero finite traits, so there isn’t anything for us to perceive.
What You Got Right, What You Got Wrong
Those who argue against God are just as anthropomorphic as those who supposedly argue for God. It is that egotistical desire and natural tendency that leads to all conflict and confusion. We all come to the debate recognizing there will be no direct physical evidence of God, so that should never be the crux of it.
The religious believe there is a Creator in spite of this lack of evidence and let faith free them to revert to imagination and personification. Atheists disbelieve there is a Creator in spite of logical evidence because they inherently try to imagine and personify the Creator upon conception. The concept of a Creator doesn’t fail any logic test. Their projection of the Creator fails any and all logic tests.
Both sides of the typical atheist vs monotheists debate were right in part. They both have flawed ideas about God for the same reason. Monotheism is correct in asserting there is an Absolute, Singular, and Infinite Origin for all that is finite. Atheism is correct in pointing out how the religious concept of God contradicts the concept of a Creator. I point out those contradictions come from a natural tendency to personify and imagine neither side could resist.
All Praise Due to Zero?
Every religion that claims only the Creator of all is deserving of worship was an attempt to assert what the analogy clarifies and confirms. Without grasping the connection between zero and actual infinity, any comparison between God and zero sounds blasphemous and insulting. Those without the proper concept of either zero or infinity within their math would have never even considered such a comparison.
Once we apply created traits to the Creator, contradictions compound. In the end, we forget where the whole idea began. What is left is so devoid of truth that simply rejecting it adds no new insight. Recognizing the connection between God and zero proves monotheism is reasonable at its core and exposes its fantastic components as figments of ancient imagination. It gives us a way of describing God without contradiction.
Raising awareness of zero’s essential and foundational role in math is not meant to say we should idolize zero. It is just a number. In its own right, it is the most insignificant value. It is what it holds a place for that gives it higher value, and it is that reality that should be idolized.
This is your invitation to defy expectation and accept the truth that has hidden in plain sight for centuries. Explore the constant at the foundation of math and you will find God. God is to reality what zero is to math.
Leave a Reply