God is to Reality what Zero is to Math
This analogy is a brief summary of what Intellectual Righteousness is all about. It gives context to a word with multiple meanings that get right to the essence of monotheism while using our most objective way of describing reality to comprehend and relate to a concept we cannot witness while we live.
Our founder, Hassan Bfly, claims the analogy proves God is real but different from what people expect, but we think “prove” is too strong of a word. He takes on the burden of proof because all the empirical evidence, logical arguments, and mathematical principles we can apply to theology and universal origin supports his claims. Without any experience that forces you to accept the evidence that is presented, rejection is still possible. As unreasonable or illogical as that rejection may be, it isn’t impossible.
In order to deny the validity of the analogy, you would have to contradict something you claim to believe or go against basic mathematical principles we studied and accepted as children in order to get good grades. Anyone who believes contradictions can exist or thinks math is just a theory with no connection to reality will continue to find ways to continue arguing, even though they have no reason.
Empirical Evidence, Logic, and Math
All the empirical evidence we can gather or witness is finite, but it would be arrogant and foolish to believe we can measure the universe or everything in it. In math, we have a concept that keeps us from making the limits of our cognition the limits of the universe, infinite. It means too large for any assignable value or going on indefinitely. It can also be limitless, immeasurable, or without beginning/end. What it cannot be is both when describing the same thing at the same time.
We know this because of logic. The law of non-contradiction says: something cannot be itself and its opposite. That means the universe can’t be finite and not finite, measurable but without beginning or end. What we don’t know should never be reason to go against what we can prove, so the only logical conclusion is: Anything that can be measured in part is entirely finite. That alone is enough evidence for a universal origin since it is impossible for something to create itself. There isn’t anything that can commit an act prior to its existence.
In order to comprehend and relate to this universal origin, we use zero’s role in determining the absolute value for all other numbers as an example of a starting point that has no beginning or end. The empirical evidence that links this concept to reality is: In order for there to be a first of anything, there must have previously been none. There is no exception to this rule since every count starts from zero.
The History of Zero
We believe this use of zero perfectly mirrors the concept of a creator of all things measurable. Those who take a more historical approach in their understanding will argue zero is useful but not needed for defining all other numbers because we had them before zero. Yes, it is possible to overlook or ignore zero when you already possess what you want to measure because we first learn about numbers by using examples. Even in those cases, zero is used without being recognized.
Whenever you clear up some empty space to start counting, that empty space represents zero. The unmarked edge of a ruler or measuring tape is zero. When you slide all the pegs of an abacus to one side, that signifies zero. When you close your fist in order to begin counting with your fingers, that is zero. Once you learn about its use, you realize zero has been around the entire time.
It is the absolute value because you can only know what is according to what it isn’t. It has no beginning/end, opposite, equal, or limit. It is literally the reason numbers never lie. If you were to personify numbers, they would all bow down to zero in gratitude and adoration because zero in math does everything God is supposed to do in reality except throw temper tantrums and meddle. It has every attribute of God except those that are humanlike or imaginable.
Since those humanlike and imaginable traits are what people most readily identify with when it comes to God, those who are already arguing for or against God may struggle to see what the analogy adds to the conversation. Nothing. It exposes the typical theological debate as opposing beliefs that can only point out each other’s flaws because neither of them is right. That’s why they all shift the burden of proof to those who disagree.
In a debate that uses words with multiple meanings, Intellectual Righteousness brings clarity. The word “god” is used for beings that are believed to be superior to man or objects of worship. The God is the undisputed chief amongst those beings or the top object of affection for those able to put someone or something above all others. Unless/Until somebody better than us reveals themselves on a large scale, the beings are all irrelevant and unprovable one way or the other.
The source is better than its product(s), so the reality deserving devotion above all others is the one that would be represented by zero as used on the number line. People tend to personify their deities because it implies choice. That might make it difficult to see how worshipping the creator of all can be beneficial since it gives no advantage in the acquisition of what is good or desirable. It gives a major advantage in the appreciation of whatever happens in life to those who grasp the gravity of the statement: God is absolute.