God + Allah = ?

[ShaSha1]

It is a Drishtantoist question. Drishtantoism, established by Shobuj Taposh, follows the equation: God + Allah = there is nothing, though theist and atheist will/may say that the equation is the crop of bizarre thought and God+ Allah= 0 respectively. To say mathematically, God + God = 2God (If Allah = God), or Allah + Allah = 2Allah (If God = Allah), and to say synthetically it might be ‘God + Allah = Gallohad’. But Allah cannot be God. It is believed that Allah has sent The Quran, and God has sent the Bible. If the Quran and the Bible are not the same matter, God is not equal to Allah. So God + Allah = there is nothing (‘nothing’ not amounting to 0). Moreover, because of being a number, the sum total of the two may not be 0. Again God ≠ Allah. Because all the Christians do not regard the Quran, do not believe Allah; and hence do not maintain the Eid festivals. In reverse order, all the Muslims do not regard the Bible, do not believe God; and hence do not maintain the Christmas Day. For this, Drishtantoism doesn’t give importance to any divine/Godly matter.

God + Allah = there is nothing. Is the equation right or true?

[chaz wyman]

It is a Drishtantoist question. The philosophy follows the equation: God + Allah = there is nothing, though theist and atheist will/may say that the equation is the crop of bizarre thought and God+ Allah= 0 respectively. To say mathematically, God + God = 2God (If Allah = God), or Allah + Allah = 2Allah (If God = Allah), and to say synthetically it might be ‘God + Allah = Gallohad’. But Allah cannot be God. It is believed that Allah has sent The Quran, and God has sent the Bible. If the Quran and the Bible are not the same matter, God is not equal to Allah. So God + Allah = there is nothing (‘nothing’ not amounting to 0). Moreover, because of being a number, the sum total of the two may not be 0. Again God ≠ Allah. Because all the Christians do not regard the Quran, do not believe Allah; and hence do not maintain the Eid festivals. In reverse order, all the Muslims do not regard the Bible, do not believe God; and hence do not maintain the Christmas Day. For this, Drishtantoism doesn’t give importance to any divine/Godly matter.

God + Allah = there is nothing. Is the equation right or true?

You assertion that god send the bible and allah sent the koran, and jahovah sent the Old testament is not inconsistent.

God might enjoy the spectacle of the struggle, warfare and strife that the confusion has wrought.
Any objective view would have to at least consider that the architect of the universe loves suffering.

It might also be that only jahovah is the real god, as the jews pre-date the other religions, and both other religions accept the jewish scriptures.

But what is the justification of adding them together anyway?

[Notvacka]

The Christian God is supposed to be The One and Only Omnipotent Creator. And so is Allah.

Both are of course later versions of the original monoteist diety, the Tetragrammaton of Judaism, JHWH, I am that I am.

There can only be one. (Or none, as atheists believe.) There is no point trying to add or subtract from the monoteist diety. (Division seems to be okay, though, hence the Trinity.)

Whether the Bible or the Quran was "sent" or contain any useful information, is a whole other matter.

[Mike Strand]

How about God = Allah = Jehova = Nature (or maybe better, Everything That Is)?

[thedoc]

But Allah cannot be God. It is believed that Allah has sent The Quran, and God has sent the Bible. If the Quran and the Bible are not the same matter, God is not equal to Allah. So God + Allah = there is nothing (‘nothing’ not amounting to 0). Moreover, because of being a number, the sum total of the two may not be 0. Again God ≠ Allah. Because all the Christians do not regard the Quran, do not believe Allah; and hence do not maintain the Eid festivals. In reverse order, all the Muslims do not regard the Bible, do not believe God; and hence do not maintain the Christmas Day. For this, Drishtantoism doesn’t give importance to any divine/Godly matter.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information but some of it is incorrect, and I base this on many years of working with a devout Muslem, and many discussions on the subject. First Muslems consider Allah as the same as the God of Abraham, Moses, and others of the Bible so they are one and the same. The Quran is simply the retelling of the Bible to Mohamed with a few extras thrown in, so again they are one and the same. In the Quran there is a phrase that all 'People of the Book' (the Bible) are acceptable to Allah, which would include Jewish and Christians. This would, of course, be excluded by the radical fundamentalists Muslem but should be accepted by all mainstream Muslems. All Christians who understand what the Quran is do not disregard it, and all Muslems who understand the source of the quran do not disregard the Bible, though they may object to some translations. Did you know that the Quran may not be printed without the original Arabic text printed in parallel so that anyone who wants can verify the accuracy of the translation. All this being said is not to deny that there are many Christians and Muslems who are not aware of these facts and do not understand that God and Allah, and the Bible and the Quran, are one and the same, just different names or tellings of the same thing.

[chaz wyman]

How about God = Allah = Jehova = Nature (or maybe better, Everything That Is)?

How about Nature is what it is.

[Mike Strand]

How about Nature is what it is.

I can go with that.

Nature might be defined as everything that human beings can come to know, through the five senses, aids to those senses (e.g. radio telescopes, geiger counters, microscopes, blood hounds, etc.), and with the aid of the scientific method. I believe people have only scratched the surface of "Nature".

Are there extant things that human beings cannot come to know, because of the inherent limitations of homo sapiens? That is, is it the case that Nature is a proper subset of everything that is? If so, then the equation, "God=everything that is", might satisfy some theologians of any faith tradition. Of course, by definition, people could never find out about that part of "God" which is humanly unknowable (if any): the "mystery" aspect that is dear to many theists' hearts.

[chaz wyman]

How about Nature is what it is.

I can go with that.

Nature might be defined as everything that human beings can come to know, through the five senses, aids to those senses (e.g. radio telescopes, geiger counters, microscopes, blood hounds, etc.), and with the aid of the scientific method. I believe people have only scratched the surface of "Nature".

Are there extant things that human beings cannot come to know, because of the inherent limitations of homo sapiens? That is, is it the case that Nature is a proper subset of everything that is? If so, then the equation, "God=everything that is", might satisfy some theologians of any faith tradition. Of course, by definition, people could never find out about that part of "God" which is humanly unknowable (if any): the "mystery" aspect that is dear to many theists' hearts.

"God = everything" ought to satisfy no one at all, as it adds exactly nothing, zip, nada. It is devoid of meaning, and tends to come equipped with a far from value neutral set of assumptions.
Nature is everything that humans can come to know as well has all those things that are hidden, much that will remain hidden. To attach a word that implies a conscious entity is foolish and without merit.

[chaz wyman]

You assertion that god send the bible and allah sent the koran, and jahovah sent the Old testament is not inconsistent.
Thanks

As I said, if god is a meglomaniac that enjoys watching people argue and kill each other ,then yes it is not inconsistent.
But if you want to assert consistency then you have to accept the conclusion of that consistency - Namely that Allah is evil.

[Mike Strand]

chaz, you wrote:

Nature is everything that humans can come to know as well has all those things that are hidden, much that will remain hidden. To attach a word that implies a conscious entity is foolish and without merit.

I restricted "nature" to everything that humans can come to know. If there are things which humans cannot come to know, those things may or may not be conscious or involve conscious parts. "God", defined as everything that is, contains human beings and other conscious entities, regardless of whether or not there is anything outside of what humans can come to know.

There are folks I've talked to who believe human beings (and maybe other animals) are the conscious part of God -- the way God experiences the universe. Sort of like we and animals and other conscious creatures outside of the solar system (if any) are projections into our currently-know universe of a higher-dimensional reality.

The above sounds weird to me, but to me electromagnetic waves still seem odd. However, I have to say I think it's at least possible that humans may someday at least discover and be able to investigate other dimensions of nature.

Just rambling here, and I agree it's silly to posit existence to anything beyond nature. And the usual definitions of God leave me unimpressed. Nevertheless, the idea I've often had that the extent of reality is what humans know or can come to know now seems a bit hubristic to me.

[chaz wyman]

chaz, you wrote:

Nature is everything that humans can come to know as well has all those things that are hidden, much that will remain hidden. To attach a word that implies a conscious entity is foolish and without merit.

I restricted "nature" to everything that humans can come to know. If there are things which humans cannot come to know, those things may or may not be conscious or involve conscious parts. "God",

You do not have the slightest reason to day that.

defined as everything that is, contains human beings and other conscious entities, regardless of whether or not there is anything outside of what humans can come to know.

You have no justification to define "god". On the one hand you say god is unknowable then you pretend that you know all about him.

There are folks I've talked to who believe human beings (and maybe other animals) are the conscious part of God -- the way God experiences the universe. Sort of like we and animals and other conscious creatures outside of the solar system (if any) are projections into our currently-know universe of a higher-dimensional reality.

There are folks that believe a lot of things, so what?

The above sounds weird to me, but to me electromagnetic waves still seem odd. However, I have to say I think it's at least possible that humans may someday at least discover and be able to investigate other dimensions of nature.

That is to assume that 'other dimensions' is meaningful. You can spend all day inventing things that may or may not be discovered, but have not the slightest reason for doing so. Why not think about what we do know, not what might not even exist?

Just rambling here, and I agree it's silly to posit existence to anything beyond nature. And the usual definitions of God leave me unimpressed. But the idea that the extent of reality is what humans know or can come to know seems a bit hubristic to me.

Well as we can only know what we know, we have no choice but to construct our view of reality from what we can reasonably have evidence for. To do more is fantasy. The fact is that we have more to go on than at any time in history, and the space occupied by god has diminished.
God+Allah=0+0=0

[Mike Strand]

If I define "god" as "nature", as apparently the philosopher Spinoza did, I still don't think anybody knows very much about god.

If someone claims a belief in God and asks me if I believe in God, too, I feel justified in asking for their definition.

People used to "know" that the earth was flat and stationary and that the sun circled the earth. They constructed their view of reality from what they knew. This was not a bar to collecting new data and coming up with a different view of reality.

[chaz wyman]

If I define "god" as "nature", as apparently the philosopher Spinoza did, I still don't think anybody knows very much about god.

If someone claims a belief in God and asks me if I believe in God, too, I feel justified in asking for their definition.

People used to "know" that the earth was flat and stationary and that the sun circled the earth. They constructed their view of reality from what they knew. This was not a bar to collecting new data and coming up with a different view of reality.

I think the point about Spinoza that many miss is that he was effectively an atheist.
He had already suffered exile from his own Jewish community due to his religious view, and his construction of his cosmology reflected that.
Denying the existence of god was a matter of life and death. Spinoza starts out by defining god as the inanimate universe of necessary cause and effect, immanent and unlimited. In effect he describes a deterministic universe; NOT an entity or a Being (though he uses the term), not intended to describe a 'person' with choice or volition.
He dared to do what Descartes found himself unable to do; challenge the church.
Read anything about god written by Spinoza replacing the word god with 'Nature' or 'reality' and any preconceived ideas of god as an entity disappear, and what you have left is an unconscious universe of matter and energy of cause and effect.

[Mike Strand]

Thanks, chaz! Your information about Spinoza agrees well with what I picked up in a class this semester. It would be a stretch to view nature as a single, grand conscious entity, even though nature apparently contains conscious entities, such as people and apes. Ants and bees? Not sure, but they appear clever enough.

[Felasco]

I like the God = Nature equation too.

Nature might be defined as everything that human beings can come to know, through the five senses, aids to those senses (e.g. radio telescopes, geiger counters, microscopes, blood hounds, etc.), and with the aid of the scientific method.

You've just reduced God/Nature to the scale of human beings, one species on one planet, in one of billions of galaxies, and that's just the stuff this one little species knows about. Gotta go thumbs down on this one, sorry.

I believe people have only scratched the surface of "Nature".

Agreed, this is very easy to demonstrate. Thus, the notion that nature is merely a bunch of stuff driven by mechanical processes should be considered a very speculative conclusion.

Are there extant things that human beings cannot come to know, because of the inherent limitations of homo sapiens?

To argue that humans are not limited in ability would be to argue that humans are gods. However, I would agree the scope of what we can know will surely be expanded dramatically over time, and that humans will probably not always take the same form as they do today.

Of course, by definition, people could never find out about that part of "God" which is humanly unknowable (if any): the "mystery" aspect that is dear to many theists' hearts.

First, we can examine what we mean by "know". Typically we mean "have created an accurate symbolic representation of some aspect of reality in our heads". This may be too limited a definition.

Second, mystery, the unknown, is what makes being human fun, so it's dear to people's hearts for a very good reason. We are free to pursue science with wild abandon only because it's most likely impossible we will ever reach the end of that inquiry, thus destroying the mystery.

What afflicts our culture today is that we are still a very young science culture, and we suffer from the illusion that we've already conquered the mystery, or will shortly. Thus we see silly conclusions such as, science has not discovered a god, thus there isn't one, and so on...