God's Names Paradoxes - Islamic Critic Part 2

Let's continue from where we've left..

Part#1 concludes that God is merciful but will not oppose the will of man/or actions  in order for man to be judged right in the afterlife

Then God's mercy can be defined to be tending to the wounds of the evil caused by man and fate which is written by God

The concept of fate is the things that are out of man's control. such as date of birth and date of death, health and well being, etc.

The problem with fate is that it causes harm same goes for free will. Which makes God either harmful or generous according to the situation and our own fate and our own choices. However God has chosen a rather interesting phrase that his mercy encompasses all things and he will punish and torture who he wants at the same time. [Quran: Suret: Al-A'raf: Verse 156]

وَاكْتُبْ لَنَا فِي هَٰذِهِ الدُّنْيَا حَسَنَةً وَفِي الْآخِرَةِ إِنَّا هُدْنَا إِلَيْكَ ۚ قَالَ عَذَابِي أُصِيبُ بِهِ مَنْ أَشَاءُ ۖ وَرَحْمَتِي وَسِعَتْ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ ۚ فَسَأَكْتُبُهَا لِلَّذِينَ يَتَّقُونَ وَيُؤْتُونَ الزَّكَاةَ وَالَّذِينَ هُم بِآيَاتِنَا يُؤْمِنُونَ

And decree for us in this world [that which is] good and [also] in the Hereafter; indeed, we have turned back to You." [ Allah ] said, "My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things." So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those who believe in Our verses 

And because fate is written by God and to assume that fate holds harm to man then either God's mercy is conditional (i.e. Not encompassing everything) or God never wrote harm in fate (i.e. Harm happens against the will of God) or fate is written without God's intervention (i.e. God has no will over humanity's fate thus lying about his ability to change anything in "Deus Ex Machina" style) or that God's Mercy definition is not clear to humanity and God's words are not compatible with humans' words thus leading to a conclusion of a defected tongue of God and inability of communication (i.e. God is neither Omnipotent nor Omniscient or he would be able to communicate or know a way to make us understand his words clearer)

Then God's mercy by the previous definition can include everything in general be it in life or afterlife. However, God's mercy excludes people who are wanted to be tortured and punished.
A contradicting phrase associating mercy with punishment and torture. Which puts judgement before mercy and forgiveness but not under the umbrella of wisdom.

Because due to the harms happening in life, judging and punishing seems like the purpose of creation inspite of the clear statement in Quran of the purpose of creation of both humanity and Jinns are to worship God and not to be judged in life. This makes judgment the reason ulterior to wisdom instead of vice versa and justifies eternal torture as a punishment for sins. [Quran: Suret Al-Zariyat: Verses 55, 56, 57, 58]

وَذَكِّرْ فَإِنَّ الذِّكْرَى تَنفَعُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ

وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالأِنْسَ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُونِ

مَا أُرِيدُ مِنْهُمْ مِنْ رِزْقٍ وَمَا أُرِيدُ أَنْ يُطْعِمُونِ

إِنَّ اللهَ هُوَ الرَّزَّاقُ ذُو الْقُوَّةِ الْمَتِينُ

And remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers.

And I did not create the jinn and mankind except to worship Me.

I do not want from them any provision, nor do I want them to feed Me.

Indeed, it is Allah who is the [continual] Provider, the firm possessor of strength.

Another paradigm is that judgment is the quality assurance for a high end worshipers which is if working, it is by far one of the most inefficient quality assurances I have ever known.

The paradox of life purpose is that purpose originates from need and God does not need or because of absurdity of God which leads that God is not wise.

Another paradox is that God's actions are affected by individual and/or group behaviors depending on the circumstances inflicting divine punishment or divine bless and interacting with his own creations makes God is either manipulated (and not immutable) or illogical (i.e. According to God's absurdity hypothesis) and can not be rationalised.

Since the 1st conclusion beats the idea of God that leaves us with the conclusion that God can not be rationalised and is not Omniscient neither Omnipotent (i.e. due to "God in the language gap" hypothesis instead of "God in the science gap" hypothesis)

All of paradoxes cause can be described and justified in terms of language shortage that God's names are equivalent metaphors to his true censored nature and his true censored name. As for god in all scriptures has no name but his name is the adjective of who he is (i.e. "God" is a god).

Which in the end negates all limiting and inconsistent characteristics of God and replaces them with an origin word or phrase "God's word" or "God's name" which is not of Earthly origin.

For admitting the weakness of all Earthly languages we have got, it is to negate the perfection of the Holy scriptures ever recorded.

This means texts like Quran is not sufficiently written to describe God in an accurate way and humanity is unable to define the true name and true adjectives of god. which contradicts the following Quran Verse that states the Quran as a book that has all the knowledge embedded into it [Quran: Suret Al-Ana'm: Verse 59]

وَعِندَهُ مَفَاتِحُ الْغَيْبِ لاَ يَعْلَمُهَا إِلاَّ هُوَ وَيَعْلَمُ مَا فِي الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَا تَسْقُطُ مِن وَرَقَةٍ إِلاَّ يَعْلَمُهَا وَلاَ حَبَّةٍ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الأَرْضِ وَلاَ رَطْبٍ وَلاَ يَابِسٍ إِلاَّ فِي كِتَابٍ مُّبِينٍ

And with Him are the keys of the unseen; none knows them except Him. And He knows what is on the land and in the sea. Not a leaf falls but that He knows it. And no grain is there within the darknesses of the earth and no moist or dry [thing] but that it is [written] in a clear record*.

*Clear record is often claimed to be the Holy book of Quran however some scholars do not agree with that interpretation and admit the Quran as another creation of God which has its own flaws as other creations have.

A parable to explain it further about a boy who brought a dog home. The boy fed the dog a fine meal full of meat instead of the leftovers. The boy is generous. Then he gave him medicine when he is sick. The boy is merciful. Then dog break a vase and the boy forgives thus the boy is forgiving.
Therefore, the boy is God according to the dog perception. and when the boy act harsh or leaves the dog hungry or ignores him, the dog will discard these events and will assume the same generosity, mercy and forgiveness from his master because his master told him to believe it is in his best interest and because he trusts his master. However, the dog's master is not necessarily perfect or a real god.

Humans either trust God and ignore any punishment for the sake of serving him or are angry animals who refuse to be treated harshly by life and thus see him as a tyranny both are driven by emotions not by any thinking methodology. (Please revise my article on the duality of proving a god)

Regardless, it seems safe to assume that God is not obligated and do not force himself to work by the definitions of his names (i.e. adjectives) which render his own names null and void.

A final parable to end my article..

Mr. Thomson is an excellent man. He does charity every weekend and he never break the rules. When his neighbour was killed they never suspected him because he is a good man who despite the ability of breaking the law, has forbidden (limited) himself from crimes. The police trusted Mr. Thomson and redirected their investigation into other suspects because they "believed" his word while some of the residents accused him bluntly of the murderer. But they have never found the killer since then and the police has never investigated Mr. Thomson because he is a trustworthy Veteran citizen. What they forgot is that not checking on him due to blind trust made him immune to law and corrupted him in return.