pls help me to understand
Hi everyone.
I have formulated a personal theory: if a religion claims that God is All-Hearing, Merciful, and has given answers to everything, then a person who sincerely and honestly seeks these answers throughout their life must receive them. If there is only silence and logical contradictions, it is mathematically consistent to assume that no one is on the other end of the line.
As someone who loves physics, the "pain of having no evidence" creates a massive cognitive dissonance for me. I see that many theological arguments feel like circular logic designed to shield the system from criticism. For instance, the idea that "God hides the evidence as a test" sounds like a built-in defense mechanism. Furthermore, a Creator who demands absolute submission under the threat of eternal Hell, while refusing to explain the rules clearly to intelligent humans, looks more like an earthly monarch than an Absolute Sovereign.
I also noticed historical inconsistencies. Out of hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, people today only highlight a few metaphors that accidentally matched reality (like high buildings or the greening of Arabia), while ignoring many predictions that simply did not come true in due time (like the Hadith in Sahih Muslim about the Hour coming before a specific boy reaches old age).
I don’t want to rebel just for the sake of it, but my brain cannot accept dogmas blindly. How do you deal with this conflict between scientific analysis and faith? Is it possible that religion was simply invented by ancient humans to cope with the fear of death and to control society? I would love to hear your thoughts, especially from those with a background in science or philosophy.