I am a philosopher who stumbled onto a breakthrough that allows reason to fully enter the field that has shunned use of the intellect altogether, theology. I don't know if I'm the first to compare zero and God, but I am confident that I am the first to fully explain all that the comparison implies. Even though I believe that comparison most accurately explains what the ancient prophets sought to teach the people of their time, I do not see myself as a prophet nor am I comfortable with any comparison to them.
I have no magical abilities, I can't see into the future, and I have not been visited by any angels, demons, aliens, or gods. I didn't need to be visited in order to make my breakthrough and I don't need to be a magician or fortune teller to convince you of the truth concerning God because we have enough conceptual context to fully grasp the zero principle and apply it to theology.
It isn't humility or modesty that makes me say I'm no prophet. It's honesty. I think they are overrated in this day and age. They're heroes of fantastic tales propped up as glorified role models for righteousness.
First of all, there can be no role model for righteousness because there is no external act linked to worshipping God alone. Furthermore, focusing on their life stories has taken the focus away from the one thing all the true prophets said: God is the creator of all.
If you can anticipate my struggle convincing you or anyone else God is to reality what zero is to math, then you should be able to appreciate any struggle the actual prophets had in convincing the people of their day of the same thing without the aid of zero and math.
Hopefully, you can also see how that message could get distorted over time. Maybe, if the focus would have stayed on their words instead of their works, what I have to say today would be redundant and unnecessary.
When I think of my accomplishment, I am buoyed with a sense of pride. While I believe my message in this day is congruent with the prophet’s in their day, I don't think I'm the difference maker. The difference is us. Instead of being puffed up with so much pride that I think I'm on their level, I recognize my success makes me less relevant.
It’s not like my breakthrough gives me any added insight as to what is true or false within any of their legacies, including their legitimacy or existence. What I do know is anything that contradicts my oft repeated analogy is false, regardless of the source. Anything that agrees is true. Anything from the past that is neither confirmed as true nor exposed as false from that analogy can be taken as insightful, enlightening, informative, entertaining, or irrelevant when it comes to righteousness.
I would be humbled by just a comparison to any of the noteworthy philosophers or scientists in history. Whether you agree or disagree with those who are still talked about, at least, you are considering their words and feel free to critique what remains of their legacy.
At best, that's how anything I have to say should be treated: something to be seriously considered but not something to be believed without question. You should believe God is to reality what zero is to math and with God is Heaven and Hell because it is impossible to dispute them without disagreeing with yourself.
For me, it's a balancing act. On the one hand, because I live in a society that celebrates entertainers, athletes, and politicians over those who perform the tasks necessary for our survival and practical advancement, I do believe my accomplishment ought to be celebrated. On the other hand, I can't see what I've done as special because anyone could have done it. The fact that I am the one who did it when any of us could isn't lost on me. I'm just not able to fully embrace my role as a messenger because I have no source of information outside of my brain, and my tendencies are too hedonistic to think of myself as holy.
I'm sort of like a lottery winner. There isn't anything inherently different or special about them that you can say caused them to win, but that prize money spends the same as hard earned cash. If they shared that money with you, how they got it wouldn't stop you from being grateful. Instead of me winning some dollars, I hit the philosophical jackpot.
If you are benefitting from my victory, not only do I want your affection and goodwill, but I think I've earned it with just two phrases: God is to reality what zero is to math and with God is Heaven and Hell. What I don't want is for anyone to expect me to do the impossible.
Successfully applying logic and reason to theology is as close to a miracle as I have in me. I don't want anybody blindly believing anything because they believe I said it or following my tastes or tendencies thinking they are a part of righteousness, either.
I'm a pretty smart guy, so I wanna say it’s my superior intellect that allowed me to break through our need for sensory perception and imagination in order to understand God. The problem is there are far too many people smarter than me for me to climb up on that high horse.
I've waited for over 20 years for one of you math or science minded geniuses to come along and take this responsibility from me and address the subject academically. Even though I appreciate the potential opportunity to earn more wealth or fame than I would have ever sought for myself, there is a big part of me that can't stand any of you…especially those of you who will personalize and dissect my words in order to dispute me instead of being grateful that I noticed the concept that makes math possible also makes monotheism reasonable.
One observation I've made over the years is: no one actually wants to know the truth about God. It's not that people have a problem with the truth per se. It's more like they reject the idea that there is an objective truth about God or the origin of the universe at all. Most people don’t even think the religion they claim to believe is totally true or immune to their personal revisions.
Ears clog and minds close when God comes up in conversation because that part of us that manipulates the mind kicks into high gear as soon as we realize there can be no empirical evidence that could call out any lies. As long as there is no absolute truth, no one can be wrong, so it's okay if you invent the greatest imaginary friend you're willing to believe exists or decide for yourself how the universe came to be.
Whether what you believe makes sense to others or not doesn’t matter because you have a right to believe whatever you want, especially when no one can prove you wrong. Such imaginary omnipotence through ignorance is addictive and hard to give up.
I think that's what makes me different from most people: I want the truth no matter what it is, and the sooner I can get it, the better. Over the years, I've developed the tendency of stripping away the superficial eye catchers that distract us from what is essential. I've applied this train of thought to other subjects besides theology.
I enter this field first because it is the most impactful and has the least room for my bias or personal opinion. At the end of the day, I'm just a thinker whose discovery comes in the form of an analogy instead of an equation: God is to reality what zero is to math.