Why zero was invented by India and not by any other civilizations

In one YouTube comment thread I have written the following to a theist:

Atheists very frequently ask this question: If God created everything then who created God? If one answers their question by saying that God needs no creation, then their usual reply would be that it is some sort of special pleading, because if everything needs creation, then why not God?

But actually it is not any sort of special pleading; rather it shows how unintelligent atheists are. Due to their lack of intelligence they fail to understand that a cause that is the end-cause in a series of other causes cannot itself have a cause, because in that case it would no longer remain an end-cause. Rather it would become one of the middle causes only. An end-cause can never have any further cause. This is simple logic.

If an entity, the existence of which has been posited in order to stop an infinite regress, needs a cause itself, then it will fail to serve its purpose, e.g. stopping an infinite regress. So, what is the purpose of positing its existence if it cannot stop that regress? Better allow the regress.

Here one atheist comes into the picture and replies that the so called "infinite regress" problem cannot be solved by a god in any way.

So I have to reply to him that it is not true that the "infinite regress" problem cannot be solved by a god. Thanks to Stephen Hawking the question 'Who created God?' has already been answered at least ten years earlier.

He replies that a god cannot solve the problem, because a god is subject to the same problem. A god's thinking and acting (deciding) are subject to infinite regress because they are things which require causes. A god is not nothing.

As per him my confusion lies in my automatic unfounded assumption that there had to be stasis before motion. Just like when people assume without foundation that there had to be nothing, before there was something.

He also writes that if motion is a prerequisite for what is, then there is no reason not to assume that the nature of existence is perpetual change. Adding a mind only creates an infinite regress and many paradoxes.

This time I point out to him that his reply shows that he is ignorant of many things. Stephen Hawking in his book 'A Brief History of Time' has given us a clue regarding how this infinite regress problem can be solved. The clue is that if we can somehow arrive at zero, then no further question will be raised and that there will be no infinite regress.

After getting this clue from him it has been possible by me to show that in God totality of everything is zero and that therefore God will need no creation. This shows infinite regress is not at all a problem anymore in case of God.

But my reply fails to convince him. He replies that a god must be comprised of something and that otherwise it is nothing. As per him I have assumed, based on an extremely narrow interpretation of an extremely tentative scientific hypothesis, based on wholly inadequate data, that there was nothing before our universe. Even so, I have contradicted myself, when I have said that a god was here before. A god, by definition is not nothing. I am trying to have it both ways.

He also adds that even if there were such a thing as a god, there would have to be some kind of mechanism by which it does whatever it does. If it is not made of something, it is nothing (less than imaginary).The supernatural by definition is just another form of natural, but it's not nothing.

He knows that the findings of physics are mind bending, but it is also true that science is still looking for the nature of reality. If I wish to throw up my hands and say: "It was just magic", I am welcome to, but even magic is not nothing. Even magic, is subject to infinite regress.

I have written: "....God ....is zero..." But that's nothing. Perhaps I have answered my own question by saying that God is zero.

My final reply to him was this:

His reply very nicely explains as to why all the other ancient civilizations failed to invent zero, whereas it was possible by Indian civilization only. This is because in ancient India, and in India only, there was the philosophical concept of Nirvana, which is a physical state where everything we know of, comes to an end. Has he ever thought where computer science would have been now if zero was not invented by an unknown Indian? So he should not try to belittle the philosophical concept that made possible the invention of zero. Rather he should try to understand what it is.

There was no further reply from him.