@ zebedee
lol... ok, I won't even try to respond to the bolded part, how about this: no one gave anything to God, while we have been given everything by God? Until you identify the entity who gave God His existence, power, etc, you have no argument, and in case such an enitity exists, then that's my God.
Oh, so now you're saying God existed thanks to metaphysics? But in this case, at least as far as I'm concerned, you're making God a creation, and thus He cannot be God.
And things aren't easy for us? What I believe is that even the easiest things for us, like every breath we take, are granted by God.
See above, again, clearly you have a different definition for God.. To me, a created God is an oxymoron. A God who is given anything is NOT God, but only a tyrant, no matter how great he is.
No. I thought I already made that clear... in fact, even intelligent people have no right to feel proud, because even their intelligence is given to them by God.
yeah, you can praise them, but they still have no right to be proud.
Such a person should not be praised, but then again, like the other person, they have no right to be proud.
No.
True, but even the other person, who *earned* what they got, they earned it ultimately because God willed it, in other words, God gave it to them.
All you did is making God a creation, like us, and thus even He has no right to view Himself as higher than anything else, which is true, except, like I said before, a created God is no God.
Firstly, any god that exists is necessarily a product of one metaphysical configuration or another. That does not mean that this god was brought into being at a specific time or by another external cause. Any god that exists, and which has specific, unnecessary attributes, exists as a result of a default, inexplicable order. I never mentioned a 'created' god.
I'm saying that your god and his attributes are the metaphysical order. I'm not saying that he was created or brought into being by it as such. But, this metaphysical order just is the way it is for no reason. Your god had no choice in choosing his own configuration, and so in a way, he is the product of metaphysics and not the decider of it. Therefore, all that he has is the product of metaphysics and not his deciding upon it or earning it.
And yes, things aren't always easy for us. Even if it is a god that gives us the ability to do certain things, we still have to put in considerable effort sometimes to do what we have to.
For example, you have your Ph.D., but you weren't handed it by anyone. You had to work to get it. People aren't simply given things for doing nothing. By contrast, your god has what he has for no reason and without having to do anything whatsoever.
And again you mention a 'created god,' which I made no mentioned of. I explained the distinction between that and what I'm talking about.
But it is interesting that you stated: "
A God who is given anything is NOT God, but only a tyrant, no matter how great he is."
It's interesting that the core distinction for you between a tyrant and a just, righteous god seems to be nothing more than whether or not another being gave them their power.
But the central difference is not the fact that they've been literally given what they have, it is the fact that they are not owed it and have never earned it. Whether another being has given something to them or they have a thing merely by virtue of their own existence is irrelevant. The point is that neither of them have any right to what they have, as they have it only by virtue of something else beyond their control, and not as a result of any effort or right on their part.
You say: "
even intelligent people have no right to feel proud, because even their intelligence is given to them by God."
Yes, and everything that your god has he only has as a result of a metaphysical accident. He has absolutely no more right or entitlement to his omnipotence or omniscience than even any human does, as neither any human nor your god has earned such things.
As I said, that is what I am arguing. Whether they have been literally given what they have or whether they have it only because of some other good fortune and not due to an actual right to it on their part, is irrelevant. In both cases, there is no right to what they have, as they have it only by accident or charity.
This is what I am trying to make clear because it seems that your whole justification for Allah's double-standard is the fact that anyone other than Allah has been literally given what they have. I merely contend that being given something isn't the only way one can come to possess something that they have no right to. And it's the fact that they have no right to it in the first place that makes the distinction, not precisely how they acquired what they have.
Topic: Discussion about "My Ordeal with the Qur'an"