God - a mathematical equation?

Just stumbled on Shiva's cosmic dance statue at CERN . An eloquent term that captures the mood of religion and science. While most religions have degenerated into a thought of clash with science, at a deeper philosophical level, spirituality is one of the paths to searching for truth, science in another. Alas religion is often a matter of faith that precludes a rational analysis.
The most ancient Indian/Hindu philosophy text "Rig Veda" has a "Creation Hymn (Nāsadīya)" a rather powerful deliberation on God. You can read the translated hymn on boloji.com; and read more at Google books searching for "The Rig Veda: An Anthology : One Hundred and Eight Hymns".
The essence of it, if we take a somewhat literal meaning is a question of what/Who was before everything was created? There was no mind nor matter, no life nor death. Then something triggered it all and we do not know what. Lets worship as the (unnamed) God (that created it). Extremely powerful concept.
Modern physics is hovering around to theories that among others talk about how particles and antiparticles were created from nothingness. Time begins with creation. Similarly there are branches of Quantum theory that layout mathematical models to explain the birth of Universe. (read Physorg.com). Geneticists are talking of creating life from fabricated organic molecules someday (read at Harvard.edu).
If such a physical model exists that can explain how thing created out of nothing and then particles interacted in ways leading finally to life. Such a model might even explain how the matter and antimatter may one day combine and again end in nothing. And the cycle continues. Then such a model with its equation(s) be worth worshiping.

Will God in the end, turn out to be a mathematical equation?

Language - a barrier to communication?

I read the Theory of Deconstruction by Jacques Derrida some years back. OK confession, I tried reading it but gave up after like 30/40 pages, philosophy is not my cup of tea. He made an interesting point that language is a barrier to communication. The rate at which we think is lot higher than what we talk and hence verbalizing slows it down. Which leads to the question, we think in language and hence our thinking is limited by the speed we can use the language (I got this thought on my own but probably Jacques would have made the same point later in the book. So no idea what was his analysis of it).
I remember the Newspeak of 1984. The same idea was propounded there. By removing words that had association with dissent, critical thinking, the big brother insured that after a while people lost the ability to have dissent since they had no word to really think it in! This thinking in language is so hardwired that when i try to think without language I draw a blank!
A quick search on internet reveals papers, some say that you cant really think outside of language. One posed a very interesting question - how do deaf think, but no answers. Maybe some thinking is hard wired into brain. thinks like flight for birds etc which probably require some specialized thinking that is sort of programmed into our biological beings. This sets me thinking.
If we take the computing systems analogy further maybe there might turn up interesting ideas. The compiler theory works the same way. there is a certain pattern to a language. By defining a small set of tokens and the rules that follow a pattern, a new computer language can be developed which is almost a mathematical translation. Can the same rules be applied to human thinking?
Can we internalize a basic set of symbols, maybe pictures, develop some mental rule to associate various such symbols into patterns that can be recognized as having a new meaning? Pictorial memory is lot faster than thinking in verbal language where a lot of overhead of arranging words into predictable and hence coherent sentence is too time wasting. Such a symbol based system will greatly speed up thinking by extension.
I was reading this paper The Role of Language in Intelligence which made an interesting point that language and intelligence reinforce each other. The more intelligent u get, the more concepts you add to your language and the more concepts you add the more intelligent you (the society as a whole) gets since it now has greater tools (language) to use. If we take a look at two ancient civilizations of India and China maybe we can draw further understanding of this. India had Sanskrit, held by many to be the natural language most suited for a computer since the rules of grammar are very well defined. Chinese has a pictorial language with lots of symbols and meaning depending on usage. Indians were masters of theoretical areas like maths and astronomy while Chinese were brilliant engineers (think rocketry, printing, paper etc). Maybe the more mathematical Sanskrit lead to more structured thinking while the more usage dependent Chinese lead to better engineers (application - usage).
Still I am not convinced that the only way to think is to first have a word, since in order to have a word you need to think of the association first. So can we only create a new word by extending an existing theme? Or is it possible to come up with something totally different?
I have often found some of the more intelligent people are also good at languages, maybe because language by its variations in concepts and usage actually fuel creative and critical thinking? is there a case to expanding the realms of language by introducing new concepts from other world languages?