How to beat a presupp at their own game

[R00tKiT]

Magic book says alot of things, and when the god in magic book says unjust things and promises unjust things, 

That's irrelevant to our discussion. The word unjust as you use it here is your own moral assessment of the Qur'an's assertions, which doesn't have any bearing on how the Qur'an describes God.
To make matters simpler: let's say that some religion A presents the God A as a "perfectly just deity which will condemn all its creatures to eternal hellfire". 
Now my rule doesn't apply to religion A, even if the actions of the deity strongly provoke our inner moral sense. 

On a side note, a well-known authentic hadith actually declares that no one, including the prophet, will go to heaven if God decides to be maximally just with his creatures:

quote: "I heard Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) saying, "The good deeds of any person will not make him enter Paradise." (i.e., None can enter Paradise through his good deeds.) They (the Prophet's companions) said, 'Not even you, O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)?' He said, "Not even myself, unless Allah bestows His favor and mercy on me."

https://sunnah.com/bukhari:5673

You read that right: infinite justness minutiously applied means that everyone goes to hell, prophets of god included. 

..and I know that you didn't rule any religions on on account of that non-rule to begin with - so it all seems so pointless.  But..go ahead, double down.

Yes, you're right. I didn't rule out christianity for example based on this rule. But you're forgetting something here, is it necessary to look for other religions when you are presented with very compelling evidence for a particular religion? Obviously not. We have to pursue some direction, after all. We can at least rest assured that no just deity will punish us for choosing the wrong belief despite our best efforts.

Then, in every instance in which God dispenses mercy, he is being unjust. Therefore, either you worship an unjust, or the Quran is mistaken (read ‘wrong’) when it refers to God as ‘the most merciful’.

Glad you’re finally getting it.

Boru

Your conclusion is simply a non sequitur. You didn't prove that mercy logically contradicts justness. If God is a maximally great being, what would maximize greatness : displaying mercy at some (well-deserved) instances without contradicting justness, or stone cold rigorous justness and no mercy property ?

If you want to insist on this contradiction, then you are asked to carefully define mercy, because I suspect it's not completely distinct from justness, people who get mercy get it for a reason, after all, for example : some good deed, or the absence of sufficiently bad deeds. If mercy and justice can intersect, even in one instance, then they cannot logically contradict each other.

---

You apparently didn't heed my warning.  If God is just and moral because he meets his own standard, then Hitler by the same logic was just and moral as he met his own standard.  As a general matter, people's ideas about what is right and wrong align with the things that they want to do or not do, and there's no reason to think that Allah is any different.  As you correctly note, he's accountable to no one.  And that's the problem.  

Let me run a hypothetical past you.  Let's suppose that in an alternate reality which only exists in our minds, all that is true about our reality is true about that reality, including Allah.  There's just one difference.  In that reality, raping babies is moral and just.  Now I'm sure you're tempted to say that that would be different, that the Allah in that reality isn't truly Allah, but look at the surrounding facts.  In that reality, just as in this one, those who believe in him do not doubt the morality or justness of any of his proclamations.  They too would argue that anything their god proclaims, even baby raping, must be moral because all morality and laws descend from him.  In short, the Muslims in bizarro world would say all the same things that you say about Allah and they would likewise be true.  As far as a believer is concerned, both you as a Muslim in this world would be justified by Allah in thinking that baby raping is wrong, while they, using all the same justifications as you do, conclude that baby raping is fine and dandy.  If the justification you use can lead you to diametrically opposed conclusions, regardless of what the god in question advocates, then how can you be sure that the Allah in this world isn't giving a pass to something as awful as baby raping?  You can't.  And the reason you can't is because regardless of what your god pronounces, it is judged moral.  This is because the standard you have adopted, and Allah's choice of moral truths, is wholly arbitrary.  If Allah is the standard of morality, he can do no wrong, not because what he does isn't problematic, but because you as a Muslim have given him carte blanche to do whatever he pleases.  If Allah's morals are arbitrary as I suggest, then there is nothing moral about them because if anything, morality isn't arbitrary.  

Chew on this for a minute.  Let's presume that something that you've accepted as moral actually isn't moral, that like baby raping, it's horribly wrong.  Given that you rubber stamp anything Allah says, how would you ever discover that this is the case, that Allah has okay'ed something that is immoral?  If you can't determine that your god is immoral, you can't determine that he is moral either.  This is a variant of the principle of falsification.  If you can't detect when you're wrong, saying that you're right is hollow and without meaning or substance.  Note also the similarities to Divine Command Theory.  If what's good is whatever Allah says is good, there are no checks on what Allah proclaims to be good.  And the Euthyphro Dilemma is just a stone's throw away.

You are making a strawman here. It's clear that a maximally great deity won't sanction raping babies. You say : " Let's presume that something that you've accepted as moral actually isn't moral" , isn't moral according to whom, again? what's more probable, that your own moral assessment is wrong, or that an all knowing deity made a moral mistake...........?

It's better to think of it in a bottom-up fashion. We establish God's existence first, as a maximally great being, then we follow God's moral recommendations. What you're doing here is the exact opposite : you think moral recommendations are arbitrary because you're not convinced that any maximally great being exists in the first place, and I don't blame you, actually, you cannot accept the conclusion (God is absolute morality) because you don't accept the simplest premise of it (God exists as a maximally great being).... well, duh..