If God exists, then he is omnipotent. Now, the Omnipotence paradox is well known. If God is all powerful, can he not build a stone he cannot lift?

Now debates can happen over the definition of "omnipotence", but I am not interested in any of those debates. I am more interested in a different aspect. First we need to isolate the root reason why theists say such a stone cannot exist.

The explanation is that God cannot build such a stone, because its a logical contradiction to the state of omnipotence of God. If God builds such a stone, he loses omnipotence, creating a logical contradiction. Hence, such a stone cannot exist.

Notice the word "logical contradiction". It means that God's omnipotence is dictated by Logic. So, God obeys the Laws of Logic. So, God is bound by logic.

Logic predictates God. So, Logic should be the ultimate bedrock of reality. We should all worship Logic, instead of God.

In Quran, it is mentioned that having sex with female slaves is permissible.

Surah An-Nisa (4:24)

>"And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those whom your right hands possess. [This is] the decree of Allah upon you. And lawful to you are [all others] beyond these, [that you seek them] with your wealth, desiring chastity, not unlawful sexual intercourse. And for those whom you enjoy [of them] from their wives, give them their due compensation as an obligation. But there is no blame upon you for what you mutually agree to beyond the obligation. Indeed, Allah is ever Knowing and Wise

Surah Al-Mu'minun (23:5-6)

>"And those who guard their private parts. Except from their wives or those whom their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed.

This permits sexual relations between a male owner and his female slave without a marriage contract.

Again adultery is forbidden.

>Surah Al-Isra (17:32): "And do not go near adultery. Indeed, it is an abomination and an evil way.

So adultery is forbidden, but sex with female slave is allowed - a contradiction. A blatant contradiction in the Quran. I don't know in what universe sex with female slave i.e. sex with a female without marriage is not considered adultery.

But then again the solution to this problem, as per philosophers, have been established too. The solution to solve this evident contradiction involves distorting the definition of adultery - the standard algorithm of shifting the goalpost.

Adultery, in Islam, does not mean a male and a female having sex without marriage. In Islam, zina/adultery means - man and woman having sex without marriage, where the woman is not a concubine.

This solves the contradiction and prevents the structural collapse of the Quran. The contradiction is solved by changing the definition as per wish, which is an incorrect approach. So, if definitions change as per societies and there is no fixed definition of adultery, Quran shouldnt mention adultery itself. If it mentions, it assumes a fixed unchanging definition. So as per modern 21st century definition of adultery, the Quranic verse is invalid and presents a contradiction, which invalidates the Quran as it contains a contradiction.

However, this concubinage introduces new dangerous problems and creates structural cracks.

Woman entering a concubinage framework means the male master had exclusive sexual rights over the woman (milk al-yamin). So, basically it does not even consider whether the woman is willing to have sexual relations or not. Basically, unwilling sex amounts to rape. So, rape is allowed.

The Quran never mentions the word "rape" even once. It mentions illegal sex, zina, adultery everything but never mentions rape. It is Islamic scholars who tell rape is evil by "interpretation" of the terms telling it interprets as rape. Interpretation and explicit mention are two different things. Two people may not have the same interpretations. If Quran was really a book of God, won't rape be mentioned as evil explicitly?

>Surah An-Nur (24:33): Explicitly exempts victims from guilt or punishment when they are forced or compelled into sexual acts against their will ("and whoever compels them [slaves], then indeed, Allah , after their compulsion, is Forgiving and Merciful")

The above verse is a masterclass in double standards. Here, it is saying victims of rape are forgiven from punishment. I have no adjective left to describe the situation. In what universe does a victim of rape even qualify for the standards of punishment? The question of forgiveness or not should not even rise in the first place. So, in a layman's term, it basically says - if a woman gets raped, she is forgiven and not punished for adultery. I don't even want to say how laughable this statement is from an ethical/logical or even technical standpoint.

It is this thought process that is depicted in the Quran verses that the extremist or lust-minded people then utilize to promote sexism, sex slavery and crimes upon women.

Clear contradictions are present in the Quran. To solve the contradictions, definitions are distorted. The new contradictions arising from the distorted definitions are solved by further distortion. Dangerous precedents which are byproducts of distortions are silently avoided. Superb!

I was thinking about the concept of slavery in Islam and how Quran permits it or tells to regulate it. Many debaters and debates are there how Quran tells to regulate slaves and does not promote it and stuff. I am not going into that.

I just found out a dangerous loophole in Islam that grants any user of Islam to gain infinite virtue and go to heaven despite committing any number of offenses. My way also throws the concepts of sin and virtue under the bus as it automatically requests a scale to measure sin and virtue which is absent, thus making the concept of sin and virtue moot.

I will present the scenario/algorithm below. I am not finding a single problem with it no matter how much I have tried. No matter what situations I design or whatever way I try to invalidate it, the person ends up with infinite virtue and the person will go to heaven, negating any sins in Islam like theft, arson, stealing, fornication and even shirk possibly.

Before stating the algorithm, two premises must be established. These premises are derived from Quran. From what I have seen these premises are universally accepted to be true by both supporters and critics of Quran and Islam.

Premise 1: Quran carries no punishment for taking slaves.

Premise 2: Quran tells freeing of slaves is virtue. It amounts to sin subtraction. The verses are shared below.
------------------------------
Surah Al-Balad (90:12–13): Describes freeing a slave (fakku raqabah, meaning freeing a neck/bondman) as the challenging and noble path to righteousness.

(This one is fascinating. I have never heard of freedom being given in installments)

Surah An-Nur (24:33): Directs slave owners to grant a freedom-seeking contract (Mukataba) to slaves who wish to buy their freedom in installments, and instructs owners to financially assist them using God's wealth.

Surah Al-Ma'idah (5:89): Makes freeing a slave an expiation (atonement) for breaking an oath.

Surah An-Nisa (4:92): Prescribes the freeing of a believing slave as part of the penance for accidental manslaughter.

Surah Al-Mujadilah (58:3): Requires the freeing of a slave as an atonement for certain traditional oaths of divorce (Zihar) before relations can resume.

Surah At-Tawbah (9:60): Designates funds from obligatory charity (Zakat) to be explicitly used for freeing captives and slaves.

--------------------------------------------------
Muhammad stated that whoever frees a Muslim slave will have every part of their own body freed from the Hellfire by God, limb for limb. The Quran (Surah Al-Balad 90:11-13) describes freeing a slave as scaling a challenging and righteous path to goodness. Islam also uses the freeing of a slave as a mandatory or recommended form of penance (kaffarah) to wipe away serious mistakes like accidental killing, broken oaths, etc.

In short, freeing slaves = gaining more and more virtue points.

Now, coming to the algorithm. It involves two persons - A and B. (taken for example. can be extended to multiple people also)

As an atheist, judging from a logical standpoint, I have come up with an algorithm.

The below conditions will run in infinite loop.

>!While A and B are alive, this goes on endlessly:!<

>!If A is slave of B:!<

>!B frees A.!<

>!B gains virtue.!<

>!B willingly becomes slave of A!<

>!Else if B is slave of A:!<

>!A frees B.!<

>!A gains virtue.!<

>!A willingly becomes slave of B!<

Following the above algorithm, we can easily register infinite virtue and go to heaven despite committing grave offenses.

Also, if you argue that some offenses are more grave than others and can prevent A and B from going to heaven, then it is a contradiction, as nothing can be more than infinite. And by the above algorithm, one can register infinite virtue.

Furthermore, anyone can temporarily convert to Islam, gain infinite virtue and leave Islam.

I have not found a single contradiction to the above algorithm. If this a loophole, then it proves that there is a severe flaw that can give criminals a ticket to heaven. Please fix this, believers! I am also surprised, nobody in the middle ages tried this.

In Islam, there is mention of slavery in the Quran where some would argue it promotes slavery, others would say it regulates slavery and even gives rights to slaves, frees them, etc. What is most interesting is that in neither of the arguments/versions of the believers of the religion, is slavery deemed illogical.

This is the definition of Slavery as stated in Wikipedia.

Slavery is the ownership of a person as property, especially in regard to their labour.

Firstly, ownership of a person is itself an invalid concept. The person's body and mind is an exclusive property of only the person bearing it. The body and mind cannot be transfered to another person or traded like commodities. This is not an intellectual or spiritual concept, it's a biological fact. Nobody can own another person, which itself turns the concept of slavery into a null and void concept. If Quran was really a book of God, it should have discussed how slavery is an invalid concept in itself, rather than discuss about its regulation/promotion (whatever stance a believer takes).

Now coming to the timeframe of the medieval Arabia around the time of Islamic expansion, we see that the development of slavery actually ties to another dangerous concept. A slave according to the contemporary held account, is the person who has been captured in war after being defeated. So, prisoners of war including men, women and children were treated as slaves. To summarize, Slaves = losing party of a war or invasion.

Now the thing is, even if we assume that the losing party has become a slave to the victor after surrendering, yet the fact is that the "slave" can act according to his own desire and will at any time. For example: A man is captured in war and turned slave. He is taken to his master's house and told to do menial labor. Five days later, he slits his master's throat. The last action defines that the "slave" is not really a "slave", as if he was truly the master's property then he would not have attacked him. (I am not going into the possible repercussions of the action or why the slave would not do it. I am simply talking about feasibility. It's a purely valid action that the slave can do, regardless of the consequences.)

If we now see why the slave will not do such an action, we arrive at a juncture. It's the looming threat of physical violence. He does not do it because he fears for his own safety, because if he fails then he would be killed. Also, why does a slave do the work for his "master" for free? Why does he not deny to do it? Again the answer is violence. If he denies, the master will kill him. That is how he became a "slave" in the first place. He agreed to work for his master after losing in battle, because if he did not agree, he would be killed.

This means that the looming threat of murder and violence forced him to make a choice. So, the only valid definition that fits the above situation is a "hostage situation".

The definition of hostage situation is this.

A hostage situation occurs when someone is held against their will by a person or group demanding specific actions in exchange for their release.

The below steps has been advised by emergency management personnel as to what to do in a hostage situation. The same can be seen if anyone even searches online for it.

What to Do If You Are Taken Hostage

• Stay calm and do not panic.
• Cooperate fully with the captors and obey their instructions.
• Speak normally and avoid complaining, arguing, or acting belligerent.
• Do not draw attention to yourself with sudden movements or hostile looks.
• Observe your surroundings and try to memorize details like the captors' voices, clothing, or physical traits.
• Do not try to escape unless you have a very clear and safe chance of survival

There are remarkable similarities with slavery, in fact there is so much similarity that slavery can be treated as a hostage situation and the act of slavery itself can be treated as a war-crime/criminal act.

And the people back then did not have any legal system to ensure justice or fairness or even emergency personnel like 911, so what happened was they lived in an eternal hostage situation. Women got used for sex slavery. There are some believers who argue that what about the female slaves who had kids with their captors and were eventually freed. For them, I would say we don't know whether the relations developed between the captor and the enslaved woman was consensual or not (rape). Personally, I find it very hard to believe that a woman would fall in love with the person who destroyed her home and have kids with him. And on the off-chance, that the woman does fall in love with the captor, we have another term to describe this in modern biology.

Stockholm Syndrome: Some victims develop positive feelings toward captors and anger toward authorities

Not only that the concept of slavery is itself a joke.

1. Master is slave of slave: The enslaver demands validation and identity through the captive's submission. The enslaver treats his captive as subhuman and seeks validation from him. This means, the dominant person becomes dependent on the very person they dominate. In short, the master is basically a slave of the slave. If the slave does not validate him, the master ceases to exist.

2. Paradoxical definition: As I described above, the slaves are treated as objects. Objects cannot commit crimes. So, if a slave slits his master's throat, then he/she cannot be held accountable, as by the definition of slave, an object cannot commit a crime.

3. Management contradiction: There are some who say that after their spouses were killed in war, the women were taken as slaves for protecting them as they were incapable of taking care of themselves or managing the family. Yet after becoming slaves, these women were entrusted with complex family tasks and taking care of the household. Moreover, the system prevalent at that time deliberately took away ownership and economic agency of women in matters (like entering professions or signing contracts) and created the exact state of financial helplessness that they are now citing as a natural trait of women. Interestingly, Muhammad's wife Khadijah was exempt from this rule because she was "high-class" and had the necessary capital. Hypocritical double standards.

So, Quran - a book of God - basically advocates hostage-taking, acknowledges a null and void concept "slavery", creates an environment of helplessness for women, integrates them into the slave lifestyle using said environment, then releases them from said "slave" lifestyle claiming it is penance for mistakes.

The more one looks into the history of our universe and introspects, the more one realizes that if a God exists, he is neither omnipotent nor omniscient. In fact, his designs, methodologies and actions are no different from either a brainless person or a lunatic.

Exhibit 1: Every single religion that entails an almighty God, states that God created Earth and created life. There are 1000s of justifications that explain how Earth is uniquely suited for life and how why Earth is the chosen site. My point is that, if God is really the master designer, then why did he create all the barren rocky planets that can never sustain life, gas giants or dead stars, or hostile environments in space? Even in our own solar system, making the other 8 planets make no sense at all, if only Earth can carry life. What is the point of building different planets that have no function? Either this is a sign of a brainless designer or an off-headed lunatic who has no idea what he is doing. And even if we assume that he has an idea and the planets were trial-and-error, then any entity which learns through trial and error is not omniscient. So, to preserve omniscience, we must sacrifice common sense and intelligence and vice versa.

If God really did create Earth, then why did he make Earth such a vulnerable small planet that is at risk of asteroid impact, comet impact or other celestial hazards? Seems like a very bad incompetent design or a complete failure.

Furthermore, there is no point in creating black holes that absorb everything and destroy matter into a singularity. No life can sustain inside a black hole ever. What is the point of building a black hole?

If God created the universe to abide by the physical laws and which is why he created all these extra useless planets and cosmic objects, then even the metaphysical has to abide by the physical laws. If not, then there is no point of creating a black hole, which means he is either a false entity or an incompetent designer.

Exhibit 2: The universe is expanding at a speed faster than light. Which means eventually it will either tear apart in a Big Rip, leading to heat death and erasure of all life. If not, then it will collapse into a singularity. Either path leads to doom of all life. What kind of creator will create an universe which is doomed from the beginning? It is a sign of an incompetent designer or a skill issue. It's like a developer has developed a code that is doomed to crash eventually. This even leads us to question whether there is any creator at all, as the design is itself faulty, if we consider our universe as a design at all.

Exhibit 3: Creating millions of life forms before humans is another sign of an impractical design and a competency gap. If God is all-powerful, why didn't God create the planet in its final form with all the humans, instead of first creating microorganisms, then creating other species, then creating the dinosaurs and making them extinct. There were other extinction events even before the dinosaur got theirs. All these extinction events make no sense. If dinosaurs were to become extinct, why did God create them at all?

As an analogy, if a customer orders a plum cake, the chef first makes a lasagna. Then dumps the lasagna into the dustbin and then makes the plum cake. It makes no sense in any universe. Such activities do not even show incompetence, it is a sign of invalid behavior.

Metaphysical-Physical Interface: Finally, the most important topic which I have not found any of the debates discuss till now. Let us assume that God created everything from nothing. We associate any property associated with God (like his omnipotence, omniscience, his will, etc.) and any other godly things that we cannot understand as metaphysical.

Now, at a particular/specific point, there is a transition from metaphysical to physical through some process. Let us call this process A. Process A's input is metaphysical and output is physical. If God created everything from nothing, then the first created object by him (say, a singularity) is a physical object. Let us assume he created this object through some way using some metaphysical aspect. That means, there must be a defined pathway/bridge between metaphysical and physical process.

Now, if we assume the above as true, it sets a dangerous precedent for theists, as it nullifies God's existence. If there is some bridge between metaphysical -> physical, then the bridge's input is metaphysical and the output is physical. Which means whatever happens inside that bridge converts metaphysical to physical. Now this means we can reverse engineer the pathways of the bridge and provide physical input and produce metaphysical output. This means we can create metaphysical entities and things from physical objects.

The first question that may arise is that the bridge might not exist or is imaginary. The answer is in the below premises and conclusion.

1. God is metaphysical
2. God created our universe
3. There must be a singular starting point of our universe if God created our universe. That starting point is physical
4. Any physical thing, according to major religions, must have a cause. The cause for the starting point must be God.
5. God is causeless or uncaused.
6. Since God is metaphysical and uncaused and the starting point is caused, there must be a causal link connecting the two.

Conclusion: There must be a bridge connecting metaphysical to physical, if God exists. Problem is if we analyze said bridge, we will understand at what point inside the bridge, metaphysical becomes physical, and utilizing same process we can create metaphysical.

So, either everything is metaphysical (which makes no sense, as we know things that are physical but not metaphysical) or everything is physical. If everything is physical, then there is no concept of God, as he is a physical being, and he will immediately stop being omniscient or omipotent and be vulnerable to time and heat death as depicted in Exhibit 2.

So, God can be either an incompetent, invalid, hapless, unskilled and senseless designer lacking common sense, intelligence or rationality, or he should not exist, according to the above exhibits.

In every story version of the Forbidden Tree in the Garden of Eden, Adam/Eve eats the forbidden fruit which God explicitly forbids and blah blah blah .. the story unfolds. They are blamed, everyone blames the other. God blames human, human blames Satan, Satan blames God, etc.

But nobody questions why the Tree was there in the first place.

Why is a Forbidden Tree in the garden of Eden? Why is it forbidden? What will happen if the forbidden fruit is eaten? Why is such a forbidden tree not cut down? If God is omnipotent, why cant he make the forbidden tree, "unforbidden"? What property makes it forbidden? Why is a forbidden thing on full display? Are other parts of the Tree also forbidden? If the fruit is forbidden, can the wood be used? Why dont we run experiments on the animals of the garden using the Forbidden fruit and create an antidote?

If someone tells you something not to do, then there must be a clear explanation. If I tell a kid not to jump off a building, it is because he will fall and die. If no explanation is provided, the curiosity to do the forbidden thing increases.

Firstly, the biggest mystery is not the Forbidden Fruit or the Tree, but what the Tree is doing there in the first place.

And if this is a test of obedience, then the forbidden action must have some meaning. If I forbid a kid from wearing black shirts on Sundays for no reason other than my own superstition, then that is not a test of obedience. its just dissemination of one false belief to another.

The Tree is named Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Heck, God should have encouraged them to eat. Was he afraid they would realize who is good and who is evil?

The Forbidden Tree simply kills reasoning from all angles.

In Islam, the Laws of Inheritance has a severe flaw that several scenarios have shares exceeding 100%. I won't go into the details because everyone can easily verify it from anywhere.

The Al-Awl was brought in specifically to address the issue in the Quran maths, by scaling the shares of each person so that their sum does not exceed 100%. Al-Awl is human-made section and if it is brought in as a bug fix patch to fix the math issue of shares and fractions. Given that the Quran has a disclaimer that it is flawless and has no error, introduction of Al-Awl destroys its divinity immediately.

However, believers defend that God's declared fractions are not meant to be taken literally and only as a metric for our understanding. It is upto us to understand God's hidden intentions to decipher his messages and God wanted us to scale the fractions and gave the other fractions as helplines. The scalings introduced are our effort to adjust the values accordingly as God did not lay out every single test. Although their argument immediately destroys Quran's flawlessness state, admitting the arithmetic error, still it introduces a far more dangerous precedent that nobody talks about.

I will be addressing the second faulty notion the Al-Awl introduces, that I have not found anyone till now talk about it. But first, I must describe the problem statement.
Total estimate: $24,000

Now speaking from a mathematical standpoint, Al-Awl basically is L1 normalization. If we project it to kernel methods, then the Al-Awl is basically the Linear Kernel method. Kernel methods test the similarity between two data points. If Al-Awl is designed to give the most optimal share to each, then the kernel methods can be used as an estimate to establish the similarity between two points (wife and daughter, wife and mother and other combinations, to see how their scaled share stands). Linear kernel acts as the Al-Awl. However, there are other kernel functions too.

As can be seen the most optimal share for Daughters is Linear or the Polynomial Kernel. For the wife, it is the Gaussian kernel. For parents, it is the Laplacian kernel.

If game theoretic principles are used, in fair division economics, the best system is often defined as the one that yields the highest possible safety net for the least-advantaged party in any given scenario. The Rawlsian Maximin Criterion ensures that no player falls below $5,700. Other kernels create extreme monopolies. The Sigmoid kernel acts as a neural compression gate that flattens extreme outliers, resulting in the tightest, most equitable distribution spread across the estate.

The Sigmoid Kernel is the only function that successfully transitions the problem from a zero-sum conflict into a cooperative, low-variance distribution where every single participant receives a robust, guaranteed baseline share without extreme penalization.

If the Laws of Inheritance which dictate the lives of people and have the potential to create or suppress conflicts are needed to be amended, why did Muhammad's followers or the creators of Al-Awl not do all these calculations before amending the Quran? If it is God's book, then such intensive calculations are needed to be conducted.

From the above calculations, it's obvious that not only the Quran is wrong, but the bug fix (Al-Awl) is also unfair and creates monopoly. The suboptimal choice was chosen as the fix for God's error in the Quran. I believe the inheritance shares should be changed in the Al-Awl to reflect the sigmoid kernel.

*********************************************************************************************************

Not only that, the situation becomes more horrific and unfair when the below situation occurs. Suppose, the man has 24000$ and he was a businessman. He lives with his wife and has no children. His only relation is a distant relative - a male cousin who hates the man and actively worked to destroy the man's business, told hurtful comments about the man and actively hates and dislikes him. However, after retirement, the wife of the man looks after him and they are married for 20 years.

After the man's death, the Laws of Inheritance are very clear on this aspect too.

Monetary Distribution (Based on a $24,000 Estate)

• Wife's Share: 1/4 times $24,000 = 6000$
• Distant Relative's Share: 3/4 times 24000$ = 18000$.

So, the distant relative who is the man's arch enemy gets everything and the wife who loves him dearly gets less than half. In what universe is this distribution fair?

The Laws of Inheritance are an absolute embarrassment in terms of fairness and have basically murdered arithmetic. I am not even talking about advanced mathematics for optimization and fairness, because let's be frank, the skills of any entity or person who sets these erroneous, unfair and faulty arithmetic distributions as laws as divine standard are equivalent that to a 5th standard failed school boy. Who in their right mind can accept these laws.

I have seen every major religion (like Islam, Christianity, Islam) label morality and the moral code as an absolute truth in life. That is how the Problem of Evil was born in the first place. Every divine book contains a list of statements that ascribe to any person a label of "Good" or "Evil" based on their actions and their categorizations in the book.

However, I believe that any act is classified as "good" or "evil" dependent upon the current circumstance of the societal environment, demographic structure and social parameters prevailing at the time of the decision. We, humans, are actually social animals and not solitary animals. When any society is created, there are some rules (definitive or subtle) that are followed or set up to maintain order and harmony within the society and to allow it to function. These rules prevent any societal structure from disintegrating into anarchy and individual solitary lifestyles. So, to maintain such harmony and prevent the social structure from breaking, we as humans, have defined certain actions and labeled them as "good" or "bad" with popular consensus. In this scenario, any action that goes against the societal standards will be treated as "bad" or "evil". The person committing it will be called sinful and considered an outlier of society.

For example: For better understanding, the situation will be discussed under 3 circumstances.
Circumstance 1: In a society, there are 100 people. Of these 100 people, 10 people are psychopaths who consider murder is perfectly fine. They will be branded as defective, abnormal people of society by the remaining 90, who are good people as per society and consider murder as sin. The 90 "good" people basically will dictate the laws of society. Here, sin is abnormal and virtue normal.

Circumstance 2: Now there are 50 "good" people and "50" psychopaths. Now, the situation is tense. The good people are now constantly wary of the psychopaths and cannot fully implement the societal standards/laws as per their wish as their institutional and moral authority is balanced out by the immoral psychopaths. Here, there is no clear demarcation between sin and virtue and tense debates.

Circumstance 3: Now there are 90 psychopaths and 10 good people. Crime, murder, rape and all kinds of sin is normalized in this society. In fact, murder is considered normal and part of day-to-day life as the 10 good people have no say in anything now. Worst case scenario happens when the 10 good people also engage in murder and sins for survival. Here, virtue is considered abnormal and sin as normal.

Depending upon the demographic situation, coupled with nature and personal preferences, isn't moral authority or moral code just an objective function of power, majority count and personal ideals If an outlier in a dataset gradually increases and becomes vast, then the previously classified normal points will now be classified as abnormal and vice versa.

Moral Authority = Function(Majority demographic count, Majority ideals, Institutional Power selected by majority ... and a list of other feature vectors)

If religion claims there is an objective truth, then they are simply lying, because moral code or morality is simply a see-saw of population demographic ideals and majority count. Whichever side is heavy wins.

Another example is consider a war between the Aztecs and the Spanish over territory. In history, the Spanish defeated Aztecs and ended human sacrifice. However, if Aztecs had won and conquered Spain (hypothetically speaking), the human sacrifice practice would have expanded to Spain. So, morality is also a power of physical and military power. Whoever has the bigger gun in the room dictates the moral code. Real life example happened with Galileo and Giordano Bruno (burnt at stake) who were accused of heresy for preaching actual science. Superstition and nonsense actually defeated science then because their authoritative power was high (The Church had extreme authority).

All religions know this, so they create God as a smokescreen to keep the parameters of the morality function on their side so that they have the upper hand, and can preach lies to consolidate their power and authority.

So, if some religion claims morality is absolute, they are simply lying. Morality is basically a hyperparameter-tuned objective function that any party tends to maximize for their own benefit, and whose stabilization/optimization point is dependent on current demographic distributions and ideological majority.

I am trying to understand the concepts explained in religious books. In Islam, there is a verse which claims to have what "the right hand possesses".

Premise A:

>>!"And [also forbidden to you are] all married women except those whom your right hands possess... And for whatever you enjoy [of mating] from them, give them their compensation [dowry] as an obligation...!<

Surah An-Nisa (Chapter 4), verse 24

Regarding this verse, I have one confusion/doubt. Before proceeding to the main doubt, I would like to clarify this minor one.

Why does it say what the "right" hand possesses, and not the "left" hand? There seems to be a bias towards right-handed people. Does it signify that the creator of this law (God or someone else) is inherently "right-handed" as we often subconsciously tend to state our dominant hand or the things which we do dominantly in our day-to-day life?

Now coming to the second verse.

Premise B:

The Quran has many verses which forbids same-sex acts aka homosexuality.

>

Now premise A allows man to have relations with anything or anyone his right hand possesses. It is a genderless neutral term, which I can interpret as a rule to have relations with a man (homosexuality) or animal (bestiality) or even corpse (necrophilia).

However, premise B prohibits homosexuality or same-sex acts.

Premise C:

>

Premise C basically states that fornication/extramarital affairs are prohibited. However, premise A absolutely negates Premise C by allowing it.

Premise A is contradicting with premise B and C.

If one verse is contradicting with multiple verses, doesn't it make the text incoherent and meaningless? Because they represent diametrically oppossite claims, so only one may be correct, which means the other verse must be wrong?

How can a divine flawless book have such contradictions?