FAQs

About the Claim Itself

God is to reality what zero is to math is an analogy that summarizes the best argument for the existence of God. Zero’s necessity as the foundational reference point in math shows the finite needs an origin that has no finite traits. It uses a mathematical concept we accept and understand as a model and example that allows description without contradiction.

Can math prove God exists?

Yes. Zero can be used as an example of a starting point that has no beginning itself, and its necessity as the foundational reference point can be used as proof that the finite needs an origin that has no finite traits. Math gives structure to what we know. It can give structure to our understanding of God that holds up to any logical scrutiny and helps to avoid reverting to imagination and personification.

If this is logically irrefutable, why hasn’t anyone else figured it out?

Logically irrefutable isn’t the same as impossible to miss or overlook. I cannot speak on what others miss. I can say when I made my breakthrough discovery, I was shocked and didn’t want to believe I was right. Maybe, others who came close shied away from what initially looks like blasphemy before following the logic to see how accurate and favorable it is.

Isn’t “God is to reality what zero is to math” just a metaphor, not a proof?

It is neither. It is an analogy comparing the role zero plays in math as the foundational reference point to the role God plays in reality as the Infinite Origin of all that is finite. The analogy summarizes the line of reasoning that proves God is real but different from expectations, and it gives us a method of description without contradiction.

How is this different from the cosmological argument or other philosophical proofs for God?

Intellectual Righteousness uses the foundational reference point of math to make its case. No advanced education is required. If you understand algebra and how analogies work, it is relatively easy to understand.

What makes this a logical proof and not just an analogy?

The analogy is just an analogy. It points to the logical proof, which is zero’s necessary foundational role in math. Zero’s necessity and role are the proof. The analogy summarizes the comparison into one sentence.

What makes Intellectual Righteousness different from any other ideas about God?

We are unique in that we use logic to prove our validity, and we don’t use gaps in knowledge or limits in cognition in order to make any claim. It is the only theological concept that asks for your honest scrutiny.

Why do you call Hassan Bfly’s beliefs facts when they are just his personal opinions?

Although there is no direct empirical evidence for a creator or any experience after death, the two ideas laid out as fact are logically sound and consistent internally and externally. Zero in math is an example of an origin without beginning and end. Its absolute nature illustrates the origin must also be the end, and the same reality can be perceived in opposing ways. They are presented as facts so that they don’t get ignored once it is realized that they are irrefutable.

Can something be logically necessary without actually existing?

That question deserves to be answered with a question. How could that be possible? Proof of logical necessity would also be evidence for existence. The existence of the finite is evidence for the existence of the infinite because the finite requires a source that has no finite traits.

Is there logical proof for God?

That is exactly what Intellectual Righteousness provides. It isn’t proof in the scientific sense of a repeatable experiment that produces tangible results. It is a logical proof. The line of reasoning is internally consistent, and all of the alternatives lead to a contradiction.

How can something come from nothing?

Depending on how you define the word “nothing,” it doesn’t exist. To avoid getting dragged into a debate over semantics, Hassan uses zero’s role in math to make his point. He contends that everything he says about zero are things we accepted as true while in school. He brings no new ideas about the mathematical principle. He only uses what we already believe in order to bring up a new way of understanding the Creator that is logically sound.

About Hassan

Who are you and why should I listen to you?

I’m just a dude who noticed the connection between zero as the foundation of math and God as the foundation of reality. You should listen to me because I’m right, and you can’t stress test something if you ignore it.

You’re not a scientist, philosopher, or theologian. Does that matter?

I am a philosopher and theologian without the credentials. They don’t matter. What matters is the message, which provides logical proof for the Creator of all that is finite.

How did Hassan come to his conclusions?

While in the process of trying to apply logic to the general principle of God, he recalled learning about absolute value and noticed how zero in math was just like what people believed about God, minus the comparisons to man. As he continued to apply the zero principle with tales of the hereafter, he realized Heaven and Hell must be the same reality when we cease to exist as individuals. His opinion is that such power over bliss and torment could be applied to life to make the best of all possibilities.

What do you mean by “non-prophetic messenger of God”?

Although he has no magical powers to speak of, he believes his views today are just as valuable as those espoused by those considered to be prophets from the past. He thinks his message may be even more important because it stands up to objective scrutiny and does not require any form of blind faith. He claims that it is the greatest religious miracle. Since he cannot perform physical miracles or predict the future, he doesn’t see how he could be considered a prophet. He refuses to claim to be something he is not.

Have you ever debated anyone with formal philosophical training?

I have. The results have been them trying to use their higher education as a means of misrepresenting my position with strawman arguments. No argument is immune to misinterpretation, but if that is the only way to dispute, the properly interpreted argument must be sound.

How long have you been working on this and why hasn’t it caught on?

This has been a 30-year journey. There have been some moments of gaining traction, but none of it was sustained. I can’t answer why it hasn’t caught on because my strengths are discovery and clarity in delivery. I think people are comfortable with the idea that there can be no proof concerning God one way or the other.

About the Framework

Does Intellectual Righteousness require me to believe in Heaven and Hell?

Intellectual Righteousness makes the argument that Heaven and Hell are real. The shift in perspective is only possible through the ability to see Hell and your ability to make it into Heaven.

Does this replace religion or is it compatible with one?

We offer the logical proof and non-contradictory way of describing the God of most monotheistic religions. It isn’t really compatible with any of them because it points out their flaws and misconceptions. It is compatible with the original message, which is: only the Creator of all deserves to be worshipped.

Do I have to give up my current beliefs to engage with this?

You don’t need to give up anything to engage. The engagement itself should cause you to abandon any belief that doesn’t hold up to logical scrutiny.

Is this a new religion?

No. It is logical proof for the same old religion: worship the Creator.

What am I supposed to do with this information once I accept it?

Acceptance should cause a shift in perspective. Do what causes the remembrance of God and the impact Heaven and Hell has on how death is perceived in order to preserve that shift.

How does Intellectual Righteousness improve my life?

Positive and negative are opposing perspectives of the same absolute reality. Applying this truth in respect of death, Heaven, and Hell unlocks our ability to see life’s worst and most dreaded possibilities as the pathway to the ultimate bliss. Looking at life through that lens gives everything that happens positive potential regardless of how things look on the surface.

Can you believe in God without religion?

Yes. Intellectual Righteousness makes the case for a Creator without requiring membership in any religious tradition, adherence to any scripture, or acceptance of any personification of God. The argument stands on logic alone.

Why do atheists and religious people keep arguing?

Because neither side is engaging the actual question. Theists defend a personified God that can’t survive logical scrutiny. Atheists dismiss the personification and think they’ve dismissed God. Both sides begin with the same flawed expectation of what God is. When contemplating a Creator, imagination and personification gets treated as if they are necessary. They are what lead them both to contradictory ideas. Both sides have a tight grip on what should be avoided, so all they can do is point out each other’s flaws without ever determining what is correct.

About God Specifically

If God has no finite traits, can God hear prayers?

Action implies limits. God is unlimited. The purpose of prayer is remembrance. It doesn’t make sense to beg the omniscient for favor as if God has bias or is unaware of your wants.

Does this God care about humans?

God created emotions. Humans impose them on God in order to relate to God better. Falsehoods move us further from God, not closer.

If God is like zero, does that mean God is nothing?

That word “nothing” has different meanings and connotations, so it would likely bring more confusion than clarity. The point of using math and numbers instead of words is to avoid the semantic quagmire that follows words with multiple meanings and people who can only make strawman arguments.

What’s the difference between this and deism?

Deism accepts a Creator but rejects the idea that God is involved in or concerned with creation. Intellectual Righteousness doesn’t assign involvement or concern to God. It strips away all finite traits, including emotion and action. The difference is that deism still leaves room for a personal God who simply stepped back. This framework removes the personality entirely, not just the intervention.

Does this mean all religions are wrong?

None of them are perfect or completely right. Monotheism points to the Creator as the only reality deserving worship, which is correct. In trying to describe the Creator, people mistakenly shoehorn God into creation, which is incorrect.

What is God if not a person?

Every finite trait we assign to God (size, emotion, preference, appearance, gender) is borrowed from creation. Strip those away, and what remains is an infinite and non-material origin. God isn’t a person. God isn’t nothing. God is the foundational reality that makes everything else possible.

Is God the same as the universe?

No. The universe is finite. It had a beginning, it has boundaries, and it is measurable. God, by definition, has no finite traits. Lumping God into the universe is the same error as treating zero like the numbers it makes possible. Zero is a number, but, as the foundational reference point of math, it doesn’t compute with the other numbers. God is something, but It is not a thing among created things.

Can an atheist engage with Intellectual Righteousness?

Not only can they, but they’re also arguably the best equipped to engage. Intellectual Righteousness doesn’t ask for faith. It asks for logic applied consistently. If you already use logic as your standard for truth, the argument meets you exactly where you are.

Practical Questions

Where do I start if I want to understand the full argument?

I would recommend either Theology for the New Millennium if you prefer to read or The Greatest Religious Miracle to watch videos.

Is there a community around this?

Not yet. You can help to start a community by subscribing to our mailing list or following us on the various social media platforms: Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Tiktok.

How can I share this with someone who would be interested?

Direct them to zerothemathgod.com and let the argument do the work. If you want a starting point, Does God Exist? is the shortest path to the core idea.

Is the book necessary or does the website cover everything?

The book is available on the website. It goes deeper into the philosophical framework and is the most complete version of the case. The other articles on the website can be shorter introductions if reading a whole book or watching an hour long video is too big of a commitment from the outset.

Why do you offer your digital products for free and for sale?

Hassan does not want to hold information in order to make spreading his message a full time occupation. He hopes that if you sample his products for free, their impact will cause you to support his cause and purchase his products. He does not want to be a recipient of charity.