Can a human be more compassionate and merciful than God (in your opinion)

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I did not mean what I said above as a personal offense. What I called a megalomaniac EGO is the atheistic pride not to give a chance to a theist to share with him evidences for the existence of the Primal Cause.

I wouldn't say it's so much "a megalomaniac ego" (nice arrogance, by the way) as much as it's a desire to not hear the same tired, done-to-death, already-debunked arguments for the hundredth consecutive time.

 

[Shad]

And I've studied logic too but I think the opposite.

I doubt that just from reading your posts over the last few months.

If I say god exists and u shad should prove that he doesn't exist

So right afterr you claim to study logic you put forward an argument from ignorance and shifting burden of proof fallacies. I do not need to refute your claim, you need to support it. Your claim is not automatically true hence why you need to support it.

U can say that it's illogical.

I just did. Try again son.

But when I claim god exists and to prove it bring a book that is ascribed to him U should bring some arguments u destroy my claim. This is logical.

You are just using another claim, a book is from God, to back another claim. That is not how you support an argument. Try again son.

Thanks for demonstrating you never studied logic and still know nothing about the subject.

 

[interminable]

I doubt that just from reading your posts over the last few months.



So right afterr you claim to study logic you put forward an argument from ignorance and shifting burden of proof fallacies. I do not need to refute your claim, you need to support it. Your claim is not automatically true hence why you need to support it.



I just did. Try again son.



You are just using another claim, a book is from God, to back another claim. That is not how you support an argument. Try again son.

Thanks for demonstrating you never studied logic and still know nothing about the subject.

The way u r insisting on it is senseless for me. Because no one can prove anything. Scientists can prove nothing because in your view they just claim and if they bring some arguments and evidences U say this is another claim.

Think more it won't harm u

 

[Shad]

The way u r insisting on it is senseless for me. Because no one can prove anything. Scientists can prove nothing because in your view they just claim and if they bring some arguments and evidences U say this is another claim.

They support models with evidence. Unlike your argument all you have is a text claiming it is from God as evidence. You never were specific. This argument is circular since a book claiming to be from God does not make it true. "The Quran says it is from God so it must be from God, since the Quran says it is true it must be true" Anyone can do that. "Islam is false because I said it is false."

Think more it won't harm u

Present an actual argument not circular reasoning. I am not obligated to entertain fallacious arguments as something worth considering. If the argument is flawed it does not to support it's conclusion, end of story.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The Primal Cause is based on a flawed premise, though. Time is only linear from our perspective, not objectively throughout the universe, thus the Primal Cause is unnecessary because there could be a never-ending circle of life, as it were.

As to how I myself was caused to exist, you see, when a man and a woman get their hormones all riled up ...

Sorry Kelly, but time is an accident of matter in motion. All is an accident of matter but as long as matter does not move, time is nonexistent. For instance, put a marble on the top of a hill and tell me how long does it take for that marble to reach the bottom of the hill. You don't know; no one knows as long as the marble does not move down. Se cannot measure time in inertia.

Now, regarding the Primal Cause as you claim above, is unnecessary, were It unnecessary, the Universe would not exist and we would not be talking today with each other. And for an end to the cycle of life or of matter, the opposite is rather true that indeed, there is an end to it. It had its beginning in the Primal Cause, got into a cycle of evolution and expansion and reaches its end in itself. But life continues, hence evolution and expansion which are akin to each other.

 

[Ben Avraham]

My god, he comes no where near compassionate towards us humans, we over power him in all areas, what a horrible thought that he can be better than us !!.

Many people on earth have many gods. Almost each one his or her own god. As I can see, yours is too weak. But that's okay. If it makes you happy, all the luck to you! Mine caused the Universe to exist.

 

[Willamena]

I can't seriously choose any of the options in the poll.

 

[psychoslice]

Many people on earth have many gods. Almost each one his or her own god. As I can see, yours is too weak. But that's okay. If it makes you happy, all the luck to you! Mine caused the Universe to exist.

Weak lol, your the one who is conditioned to worship your favorite God over all other gods, oh sorry, G-D.

 

[Willamena]

That's what you do if you were omnibenovlent and omnipotent. The question is if that's what you'd do if you were omniscient as well.

And omnipresent.

 

[Tumah]

And omnipresent.

Well, that's besides the point.

 

[interminable]

They support models with evidence. Unlike your argument all you have is a text claiming it is from God as evidence. You never were specific. This argument is circular since a book claiming to be from God does not make it true. "The Quran says it is from God so it must be from God, since the Quran says it is true it must be true" Anyone can do that. "Islam is false because I said it is false."



Present an actual argument not circular reasoning. I am not obligated to entertain fallacious arguments as something worth considering. If the argument is flawed it does not to support it's conclusion, end of story.

Quran doesn't just say I'm from God.

Quran says I'm a miracle if u can bring 3 verses like me to defeat me.

Is this hard to understand???
If u want to defeat its claim bringing 3 verses isn't very hard is it?

 

[Shia Islam]

So, if I was omnipotent (the quality of having unlimited power) I would heal people of mental and physical illnesses. I would fill with joy and euphoria every sad, lonely, depressed, and miserable person. I would heal all infirmities and mental illness. I would give pedophiles and sexual deviants a healthy sexuality so that they don't feel inclined to commit acts that harm themselves or others. I would heal all people of drug, sexual, or other addictions

I would enlighten all people to know the truth. I would speak clear messages to people that seek me so that they could write down word-for-word my instructions (So there would be no confusion). I would elect world leaders who were the most wise and compassionate people on earth, and I would guide their every decision so that they knew what was best for the people.

Would we have a better world if that was done?

I would let no one be tortured for all eternity in hell. I find that people who do evil are often suffering a lot. No one wakes up in the morning and says "I'm feeling so good today, I want to go kill a bunch of people" . Consequently, I feel compassion for such people already and dread the idea of them suffering forever. Either heal them, transform them, or put them out of their misery.

I'm reading a book by Allan Kardec "The Spirit's book". It's a great read if you haven't read it. He interacts with spirits and they answer all his questions about spirits. They claim that the Spirit existed before it was incarnated and that this body is just one temporary outfit. They tell him that every spirit will be purified and made perfect eventually, but for some it will take many thousands of years and many lifetimes.

I have to agree that this belief is far more just, compassionate, merciful, and rational than the belief that people will be tortured forever and ever because of what they did or believed in this brief life (which is one-second compared to eternity....why punish someone eternally because of what they did with one-second, especially when you consider that they were blind, confused, unenlightened, and naturally inclined to sin).

Please answer the poll if you could. Please be honest about it. I'm asking what is the most compassionate approach. You might firmly believe that eternal torture is what is in store for unbelievers, but do you truly find that to be the most compassionate approach?

With respect,
An underlining assumption in this post is that all humans are good, and people do bad things as a reaction to what they went through.

That's simply is not true. There are good people and there are bad ones. Inherently evil ones. If they only have unlimited power, you will see how evil are they. If you are going to place these people into heaven, they will turn it into Hell.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

If someone kill 200000 people in one second u will let him to be free and scoff the others huh???

Thank u . We don't want your compassionate behavior towards criminals

You would if the one doing it was Allah.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Quran doesn't just say I'm from God.

Quran says I'm a miracle if u can bring 3 verses like me to defeat me.

Is this hard to understand???
If u want to defeat its claim bringing 3 verses isn't very hard is it?

And since we don't believe the Quran we're not obligated to accommodate its attempt to shift the burden of proof, nor are we required to take its bizarre claims to being a miracle on faith alone. Not to mention the criteria of this challenge are ridiculously subjective and subject to the confirmation bias Muslims have that the Quran is perfect & inerrant because it's from God anyway. Because if it's from God then nothing humans could make would be like it. So it's nothing more than a Kent Hovind challenge. Though I suppose at this point that would mean Kent Hovind was putting forth 'Muhammad challenges' against evolution.

 

[interminable]

You would if the one doing it was Allah.

I'm speechless

 

[interminable]

And since we don't believe the Quran we're not obligated to accommodate its attempt to shift the burden of proof, nor are we required to take its bizarre claims to being a miracle on faith alone. Not to mention the criteria of this challenge are ridiculously subjective and subject to the confirmation bias Muslims have that the Quran is perfect & inerrant because it's from God anyway. Because if it's from God then nothing humans could make would be like it. So it's nothing more than a Kent Hovind challenge. Though I suppose at this point that would mean Kent Hovind was putting forth 'Muhammad challenges' against evolution.

If u could bring 3 verses like it I would say Qur'an is not from God.

Actually miracle is something that people can't do that. If they could do that it isn't miracle anymore

 

[Spiderman]

If u could bring 3 verses like it I would say Qur'an is not from God.

Actually miracle is something that people can't do that. If they could do that it isn't miracle anymore

I read the Koran. It is incoherent. I've seen a lot of people here post phrases that were deeper and made a lot more sense than a lot of verses in the Koran.

This post is more coherent than much of the Koran. Lol

 

[interminable]

I read the Koran. It is incoherent. I've seen a lot of people here post phrases that were deeper and made a lot more sense than a lot of verses in the Koran.

This post is more coherent than much of the Koran. Lol

There is a book named coherence in the quran written by a Pakistani scholar
I didn't find it except in a pdf that I hate to read by.
If u are willing to know about it just download it.

 

[Shad]

Quran doesn't just say I'm from God.

Quran says I'm a miracle if u can bring 3 verses like me to defeat me.

Shifting burden of proof and argument from ignorance. It is your claim so support it. No one needs to disprove your claim as it is not automatically true just because you believe it to be. All you have shown is that you are gullible and have no known of fallacious arguments.

Is this hard to understand???

It is easy to understand that you accept fallacious arguments as you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to logic

If u want to defeat its claim bringing 3 verses isn't very hard is it?

Illogical challenges are useless. Try again son.

Argument from Ignorance

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

 

[interminable]

Shifting burden of proof and argument from ignorance. It is your claim so support it. No one needs to disprove your claim as it is not automatically true just because you believe it to be. All you have shown is that you are gullible and have no known of fallacious arguments.



It is easy to understand that you accept fallacious arguments as you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to logic



Illogical challenges are useless. Try again son.

Argument from Ignorance

Fallacy: Burden of Proof

OK
Seems I have to bring simple example to make u understand that burden of proof doesn't apply here

Imagine I'm an actor and I claim that I'm the best actor in the world and for proving my claim I show u some of the movies that I starred in them

How can u reject my claim???
Do u call it burden of proof????




If I claim I'm the best actor in the world and I haven't starred in any film and insist that I'm the best and arrogantly say u should prove that I'm not the best
Yes this is a burden of proof