It’s funny. Even though I shocked and scared myself and thought I committed the worst blasphemy of all time when I initially made the breakthrough that led me to the analogy, God is to reality what zero is to math, I still get surprised when both the religious and atheist reject this concept. Somehow, people seem to think I'm saying God does not exist. That's just asinine.
I can only suspect or assume such nonsense stems from people believing zero is not a real value…it’s just a mental unit. For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone can believe the value that is necessary to define all other values is a figment of man’s imagination.
I've heard people say things, like: numbers existed before zero, so it can't be necessary to define them. What can I say to that? They’re right…numbers did exist before zero just like things fell before we discovered gravity.
People act like we invented math. Sure. Somebody invented the sounds and the symbols associated with math, but the principles themselves are discoveries, just like gravity.
Now I ask you, in discovery, which comes first: the obvious or the subtle? The answer is obvious. Zero was always present and necessary to give value to all other numbers. It just took longer to discover or become aware of its existence.
Don’t believe me? Try something simple, like counting with your fingers. You don’t start with one, even though you may have assumed you do. You start with a closed fist, symbolizing zero as your start, before you flick out any of your fingers.
Don't you know, whether you're religious, atheist, or somewhere in between that rejecting the concept of zero relating to something real and unimaginable means you must reject or contradict something you claim to believe?
If you're religious and believe God is the Creator of everything, then the only way to define that Creator is to mentally get rid of everything. Do that and you're left with “nothing”, which would be represented numerically by the value zero.
If you try to relate to God in any other way, it would be associated with another mathematical value. Whether it be negative or positive, partial or whole, constant or variable, rational or irrational, or real or imaginary; every value is defined by its relation to zero.
Some of you would have said before today that God created everything from nothing and today will say nothing doesn't exist at all in order to disagree with me. Make up your minds. Before you try to stick to your original claim, as if God and this Nothing from which everything else was created can be two separate realities, consider this:
You cannot bring nothing into existence. To do so would be to actually, not mentally, destroy everything else. God couldn't create Nothing without destroying everything else, including “Himself”. That would still leave Nothing as the only source for all that now exists.
The idea of God creating “Himself” out of Nothingis just as flawed. You must exist in order to do, so the idea of self-creation is self-contradicting. How can someone or something commit an act before they exist? The answer is: they can't!
Now, for all of you who don't believe God exists, whether you're open to the possibility or not, I agree. The concept of God within religion contradicts itself way too much for any logical person to believe.
I say that first, so if you interpret anything I say as co-signing any of those theological beliefs, you are misinterpreting mine. The analogy, God is to reality what zero is to math, sounds like blasphemy to many of those who accept any of the ancient religions as true. I disagree with the idea of faith just as much, if not more than you.
In your attempt to embrace logic and reason, you have failed to see you're on the opposite side of the same irrational coin. You both are unwilling to let go of your need for sensory perception or imagination for learning.
Before you get upset with me for pointing out the truth, let's get down to the essence of your religious rejection. If you keep it real with yourself, you will admit it isn't because the concept of a Creator of the universe is irrational or illogical.
The idea of a single origin of everything else makes sense to you until you try to imagine what that Creator must be like and realize you can’t without contradicting yourself. Instead of giving up on your imagination, you gave up on your creator.
Don't believe me? Ask yourself why would you disagree with God is to reality what zero is to math, and the answer would undoubtedly be because you cannot imagine a reality that could be represented by zero, even though you may be willing to recognize the necessity for zero in math.
You just want to skip over the logic of this rational conclusion: math is the most objective science and the most honest language for defining or describing the attributes of reality. In order for numbers to be relevant, they must relate to reality since they must quantify or describe something. The value of every number is defined according to its relation to zero. No zero, no numbers. It makes no sense then to believe zero is a mental unit invented by man. It is the only necessary value in math.
You shouldn't be able to perceive or imagine the reality zero relates to because sensory perception is your matter’s recognition of the matter outside of you and imagination is just its simulation. How could you and why would you expect to witness or imagine the reality that created matter? Where is the logic or reason in that?
I've had people try to debate with me by using the law of conservation of matter and energy, (as if I’d forgotten my junior high science lessons) when the truth is I thought about it more than them. If you don't really remember it, don't feel bad. I vaguely remembered something about matter and energy not being able to be created or destroyed.
It wasn't until after I made my breakthrough that I went looking deeper. My motivation then was to disprove what I had just discovered in the hopes of not having to be a pioneer in a contentious and opinion driven subject like theology.
To my surprise, what I found was: the law, in its over simplified form, is false. Don't get me wrong. The law of conservation of mass is spot on. It is evident through observation and experimentation that no new thing is created and no already existing thing is destroyed by any physical interaction. Things just get changed and rearranged. That is not because matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's because neither matter nor energy have the power to create or destroy.
How do I know? Contradictions don't exist in reality. If matter and energy could not be created or destroyed, that would make them infinite. It is impossible for something to be both infinite and finite. If you can measure it in part, its entirety is measurable, even if it's not by you. If it's measurable, it must have a beginning because measurement itself must begin and end somewhere.
Before there could be a first of anything, there had to be none, because in order for there to be a first, there must have previously been none. The beginning of every count or measurement is zero.
The ironic thing about people trying to use the law of conservation to argue for an infinite universe is, without the creation of anything new taking place in real time, the law proves the mass of the universe is not just finite. It’s a constant.
I've had people try to point to space as something that is infinite, but we can measure in part. Indefinite and infinite are synonymous, but they are not exactly the same. Indefinite is finite but cannot be determined at the present time by us, usually because its range exceeds our perception or imagination. That symbol that looks like a sideways eight; that's indefinite. You can count up to that. Infinite is immeasurable. It is without beginning or end. You cannot count up to infinity.
For those who think space is infinite, I ask you: does space become something immeasurable at some point? I don't mean is it too big for us to measure in its entirety or does its expanse get so far away from us that we can only imagine how much farther it stretches. I mean does it become something that is impossible to measure.
If the answer is yes, that point marks the end of space because it has become something totally different. If the answer is no, then there is an end to space that has yet to be determined. Either way, space is measurable throughout; finite just like everything else we can sense or imagine.
The idea that math and science go against theology is as mythical as the unicorn. Even the idea that the big bang theory goes against the concept of a creator of the universe makes no sense. It is a theory on how God created the universe. Of course, it’s going to begin with the smallest non-zero possibility since that would be the first theoretically perceivable or imaginable reality. You can't start from nothing and go straight to something huge. Whether it's fast or slow, expansion is a gradual process.
Whatever that first perceivable part or first phase of the universe is, it shouldn't be called a singularity. Not to be redundant, but a singularity is singular…meaning it is one lone, distinct, and unique reality. There can be no possibility for multiple singularities. What anti-God big bang theorists try to call the beginning of the universe can supposedly be found at the center of any and every black hole.
How can the beginning of the universe be found within it? That sounds like the same contradiction that makes them reject religion in the first place. At least the religious openly admit they don't make sense, even if they don’t realize it, as soon as they appeal to faith.
Let's be clear, sane, and reasonable. There must be a creator of everything in the universe because it is all measurable and finite, which means it all has a beginning and end. Since anything measurable and finite would be a part of creation itself, the Creator must be infinite and immeasurable, singular, without opposite or equal; a reality that can only be represented by zero. God is to reality what zero is to math.