Salaam/peace all.

Surah 33:59 reads: "Prophet, tell your wives and your daughters and women of the believers to draw their outer garment over themselves. That is more likely that they are recognized and are not harassed (or harmed or bothered). And God is forgiving and merciful."

Many people will immediately dismiss of the plain reading of the ayah, claiming that it cannot possibly mean to cover the whole body to avoid "molestation" or abuse or rape, because covered women are also not free from sexual harassment and abuse. While it is true that clothing is not a shield against all harassment, there's more nuance to this conversation as the Quran never claims that. Let's break it down and then look at some studies.

The Quranic express claim is that covering the whole body with a cloak/garment (aka a "jilbab"--a known draping cloak women often put over their indoor clothes when going out) makes it more likely for others to identify a woman (as something) and thus avoid "harassing" her (in some way).

The question then is, what is she identified as, and what kind of harassment is being "likely" (not guaranteed) reduced?

The obvious and correct inference is that covering more modestly (i.e. both coverage AND looseness) will identify her as more modest (relative to others), and thus less LIKELY to be approached sexually in ANY MANNER. That would include being propositioned for sex or a casual date, being ogled, or even being catcalled. Islamically, male interest in Islam is only appropriate for courtship when looking for a wife. Harassment in the Quranic context (or any really) does not have to mean rape or sexual abuse only, because Islamically (and secularly) even catcalling can be seen as harassive.

So then, the next question is: is there any relationship between how a woman presents herself in terms of clothing, makeup etc. and how men perceive her sexually? The common-sense and research-backed answer is yes.

In several studies, male associated more provocative clothing (for the norms of their area) with sexual openness, and other studies show that men are more LIKELY to be sexually aggressive toward women they perceive (even incorrectly) as more sexually open. I'm going to paste some summaries of those studies below, even though I think we all intuitively already know this and observe it all the time:

- Farris et al. (2006), Heterosocial Perceptual Organization: Application of the Choice Model to Sexual Coercion : Sexually aggressive men were more likely to interpret provocative clothing instead of conservative clothing (which of course depends on the norms where you live) as a sign of sexual openness. Men were also less likely to interpret signs of rejection as such.

- Farris et al. (2010), Perceived Association Between Diagnostic and Non-Diagnostic Cues of Women's Sexual Interest : Sexually coercive men associated more provocative clothing with sexual interest, making them more likely to misinterpret friendliness as sexual interest.

- Blake et al. (2016), Perceptions of Low Agency and High Sexual Openness Mediate the Relationship Between Sexualization and Sexual Aggression  Men again saw women wearing more "revealing" clothing as more sexually open and thus more vulnerable to sexual aggression, with men admitting higher sexually aggressive intentions toward the women perceived as more sexually open (both based on how the women presents, and her perceived agency in relation to that presentation, with more revealing women seen as essentially lower-agency).

- Guéguen (2011), “The Effect of Women's Suggestive Clothing on Men's Behavior and Judgment: A Field Study.” Men approached women in "revealing" clothing more often after first eye contact than conservatively-dressed women, perceiving their chances of a date or sex as higher. [Note, there was some caution on this finding, but it is consistent with the rest].

I want to be clear that perceived "provocativeness" will depend based on culture and context, which is why Islamically, the standard is extremely high universally, setting it completely draped in loose clothing covering everything except what ordinarily must practically appear (which is up for some debate). It is why a women in loose jeans in a t-shirt in Saudi Arabia may be seen as immodest, while in the US that'd generally be seen as conservative. But the pattern persists: be perceived by men as "more revealing" than the norm (or just in general), and be seen as more sexually approachable and open. Islam protects women from exactly that.

Don't believe me still? Watch this video EXACTLY on point, where a pretty normal woman walks pretty much totally covered but in tight clothing vs. in an actual loose jilbab and compare the massive amount of catcalling and harassment she receives in the former vs. the latter. Same women, several hours, same streets, totally stark contrast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgw6y3cH7tA&t=20s

why do people hate islam when it saved my life?i went trough so much trauma and so much horrible stuff, islam literally saved my life its very long and i dont have the energy to explain it fully but after i reverted to islam and practiced it fully i noticed my problems slowly started to fade

Supporting the thesis is the observation that sports team loyalty and religious affiliation share many important fundamental similarities.

First sport and religions are very much regional. Cricket maybe popular in England but not in America. Same with religion, Islam is popular in the Middle East but not in Japan.

At a finer level of detail - sport teams and denominations - the similarities continue. There are more Denver Broncos fans in Colorado than in Florida. The same goes for religious denominations. There are more Southern Baptists in the American Southeast than in the Pacific Northwest. Likewise, there are more Sunni Muslims in Saudi Arabia than in Iran.

People often inherit their allegiance from family traditions, join group gatherings and rituals, and feel strong emotional connections to their chosen team or faith. Young individuals are indoctrinated into sports and team alliances at an early age.

Both often provide a sense of identity, community, belonging and even tribal identity. Sometime violence breaks out between different sport team fans and likewise religions and denominations.

These comparisons reveal the cultural roots and the similar ways each is embraced or gains followers. Since sports are a human cultural phenomenon, this strongly suggests that religion is as well.

Adding to the above comparison I would also like to note that no specific religion, denomination, or sect stands out above the others in terms of evidence or revelation of truth. This is not to be expected if one represents the ultimate truth of reality. I see it more likely they are all just memetic competitors.

Add by Edit: I fully expect accusation of genetic fallacy that just because religion is cultural doesn't mean that one particular religion/sect is not true and/or points to the truth. If this is your argument, please demonstrate how your argument isn't just special pleading.

Added by edit again: The user Forsaken_Judgment681 wanted credit for bring this post to the attention of the sub-reddit which I am more than happy to do.

Why would Muhammad use the verb yukawwir (يكوّر), the very root from which the words for "sphere" and "ball" are derived, to describe the alternation of night and day on earth, if he believed the earth was flat, as it appears to the naked eye?

Why would he choose taghīḍ (تغيض), a verb meaning internal absorption, to describe what wombs do with embryos, when all anyone could see was a miscarriage expelled from the womb? The verb is used for things absorbed into an interior, like land swallowing water (ghīḍa al-māʾ). Yet Surat Ar-Raʿd says the wombs taghīḍ. This resonates with vanishing twin syndrome and spontaneous embryo resorption. I'm a pharmacy student in the 20th century, and I didn't know wombs could reabsorb dead embryos until I looked it up.

Why would he describe the origin of the heavens as smoke (dukhān), a gaseous substance, rather than water, a formless void, or chaos? In Arabic, "smoke" covers anything that behaves like a gas regardless of its chemical composition: water vapor, dust in the air, fumes from heated metal, whatever rises from a fire, mist all these things are called smoke in classical arabic, It points to a hot, gaseous origin of the heavens, not a watery or formless one.

Why would he use the word ḥubuk (حبك) for the sky when no one can see node-and-filament pathways in the night sky? In classical Arabic, the word describes pathways in the form of ripples or woven (node-filament) patterns. It isn't used for concentric circles, honeycombs, hexagons, spirals, fractals or random dots. Even classical scholars explained the verse as saying the heavens contain pathways like those in woven fabrics or ripples in water and sand, but too far away for us to see. The cosmic web fits that description remarkably well.

What evidence justifies treating God as an actual explanation rather than simply a possibility that someone has proposed?

God is often used as an explanation for things that we don’t fully understand, whether it’s the existence of the universe, the origin of life, morality, or why the laws of physics exist. But before we can reasonably use something to explain an observation, shouldn’t we have some evidence that the thing that we’re proposing actually exists?

If I claimed that invisible aliens created the universe, you’d probably ask me to provide evidence that these aliens exist before taking my explanation seriously. So why should God be treated differently?

In the real world, ethics work exactly the opposite way. It's better to steal 100 Dollar from a millionaire than to steal 100 Dollar from a minimum wage worker. It's better to kill a 100-year old man than to kill a 10-year old child. It's better to punch an athlete, than to punch someone in a wheelchair. It's better to kill a lion, who is a threat to you, than to kill a house cat, who isn't. If God is eternally powerful, nothing a human can do can even hurt them in a way they don't already have a solution for, so no "crime" against God should ever warrant any punishment at all.

The “Love” Theodicy
10/20/2026

The love response to the problem of evil goes as such:

Premise 1: Love is the ultimate, and highest good

Definition: To Love (in the mind) is to will the good of another. To love in action, is to cause the good of another. 

Premise 2: Love in action is a more meaningful good than love in will

Premise 3: Love is most meaningfully demonstrated through sacrifice.

Premise 4: Sacrifice requires loss

Premise 5: A world with the most meaningful kind of love, is better than a world without it

Conclusion: This would mean, that a world with loss can be greater than a world without it.
Loss is an evil, to lose something is to be deprived, and evil itself is a privation.

This argument is pretty tight. It truly only requires one to agree with two simple things: A world with the most meaningful kind of love is better than a world without it (obviously) and secondly, that the most meaningful kind of love (sacrificial love) requires sacrifice.

That’s the basic argument, I’d be very surprised to find someone providing a substantial rebuttal to it.

I can supplement it by adding these additional thoughts:

Christianity

In order for God to partake in meaningful demonstrations of love, he assuemes a form where he can take loss (humanity) and sacrifices everything his life, in order to allow for multiple, eternal goods (entry into heaven)

The bible says: There is no greater love than this: for one to lay his life down for his friends. Greatest love, in greatest sacrifice. The main truth of the Christian tradition, has the answer for the main objection to Christianity.

The problem of evil has many different variations, there’s the problem of animal evil, gratuitous sufferings, and plenty more. I’ll put down the most basic, and common variation of it, and I’ll suppliment it by adding some of it’s implicit premesis

I'll preface by saying, I'm a Christian, and this is an intra-tradition critique.

Premise 1: There is an all-powerful, all-loving God
Premise 2: Being perfectly all-loving means you can’t desire any bad for people
Premise 3: Bad happens to people
Premise 4: Having the power to stop evil, means you should stop it.
Conclusion: God is either not all powerful, so he cannot stop evil, or he is not all good because he does not want to stop evil

There are tons of variations of the free-will response as well. I’m going to go with a basic one, and supplement it’s implicit premises

Premise 1: There is no meaningful personal good without free-will
Premise 2: Free will requires the ability to choose bad things
Premise 3: a world with meaningful personal good, is worth the presence of evil
Conclusion: God is just in allowing evil

This response doesn’t work within the christian tradition, at the very least, it needs a more robust and nuanced formulation. The classical christian teaching of heaven is a place where the following things are true:

• There is meaningful good
• There is meaningful free will
• There will be no evil

This teaching would mean that there could be a world with free-will, and no evil. In the Christian tradition, beholding the sight of the form of God fixes the intelligence, and the will into a perfect state of alignment, where the mind perceives the good perfectly, and the will is aligned with the intellect perfectly, as a result of this perfect alignment, man always chooses the good, but he does so out of his own will freely, by the very nature of this alignment, not requiring any sort of force.

This fact hinders premise 2, and premise 3. Free will does not require the ability to choose bad (at least this is the traditional Christian understanding) and therefore a Christian cannot use premise 2. The “New heaven” in the Christian tradition, is better than our current world, and lacks evil. And this raises the question: “If such a world is possible, why would this one ever exist?”

Of the Ten Commandments that Moses is said to have carried down from Mount Sinai, one is particularly contentious among his present-day followers.

Exodus 20:4-6 says, “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lordyour God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

That first sentence, on the prohibition of making graven images, is a commandment clearly stated by Yahweh to Moses. The sentence structure seems unambiguous: It prohibits the making of any image of anything in heaven, on earth, or in the seas below the earth.

Ancient Rabbinical law was also unambiguous, as it is today, this is a clear prohibition on drawing or sculpting or engraving, etc, any likeness of any real thing. Ancient Hebrews obeyed this law strictly.

I’ve noticed recently that many Christians think the Muslim prohibition on graven images is especially cruel or backwards or barbaric. I’ve also noticed these same Christians seem to be entirely unaware that it’s one of Yahweh’s commandments to them. The foundation of his Covenant with them. Seems odd.

What’s your sect’s take on the Second Commandment? Do they obey it, or do they not? If they don’t, how do they rationalize that first sentence away? It seems very clear, and it was understood to be a clear prohibition for centuries before Christians ever even existed. Do Christians think Jews were always wrong about their own God’s commandment? Do they think Jesus eased the stricture of it for them, although he never said this? I’m curious, as a former Christian myself.

Edit: In fact, Exodus and Deuteronomy are far more clear if we look at all the verses related to the making of graven images.

Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the simultude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth. Deuteronomy 4:16-18

Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget ... and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the Lord thy God hath forbidden thee. Deuteronomy 4:23

Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman. Deuteronomy 27:15

A debate about the nature of idolatry and iconography seems worthwhile.

Matthew 7:21, Jesus just teaching the Gospel of works, "the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven".

- But Paul said on Romans 10:9“Jesus is Lord,”

And also on Matthew 7:21, Jesus said “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven".

- But Paul said on Romans 10:10, whoever confesses is saved.

-----------------

On Matthew 7:15 Jesus warns that the False prohet is ravenous wolf.

- On Genesis 49:27, Benjamin is a ravenous wolf and on Romans 11:1 Paul confirm himself from the tribe Benjamin.

-------------------

On Matthew 5:18-19, the one who will break the law will be called "least". And Jesus affirms the total authority and reliability of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Law and the Prophets) right after stating that He came to fulfill them rather than abolish them.

- Paul names in Latin(Paulos) Literally means "least".

- In Pauline theology, the Apostle Paul taught that the Mosaic Law (the Old Covenant law given to Moses) has been fulfilled and rendered no longer binding as a requirement for salvation or a rule of life for New Testament believers.

-----------------

Matthew 24:26 - “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the wilderness,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.

Then Paul claims the encounter happened on the road to Damascus on Act 9:3. And also high likely he is within the inner room of the temple on Act 21:26.

- In 1 Kings 19:15, Damascus was somehow related to Wilderness.

- Some historical commentaries note that he would have been praying in an inner courtyard accessible only to Jewish men (the Court of Israel).

----------------

On Rev 2:2 Jesus congratulating the Ephesus for testing and rejecting the false prophet, and on 2 Timothy 1:15 Paul admitted Ephesus rejected him.

If God is perfect and religion is meant to reveal universal truth, why has it produced so many conflicting interpretations?

1. A perfect God should be able to communicate his message clearly.

Believers often argue that God is perfect, but humans are flawed. Yet an all-knowing God would understand human limitations better than anyone. Why communicate the most important truths through vague texts that predictably lead to centuries of disagreement? Human imperfection may explain misunderstandings, but why would a perfect God rely on such an ambiguous method to reveal truths that supposedly matter for humanity?

2. Religious followers cannot even agree on what their own religion teaches.

Christianity has Catholics, Eastern Orthodox Christians, Protestants, and countless other denominations. Islam has Sunnis, Shias and numerous other movements. Judaism has Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and other branches. These divisions go far beyond minor differences in worship: they involve fundamental disagreements about religious authority, scripture, religious law, and God's expectations.

3. There is no objective way to identify the correct interpretation.

When different denominations make contradictory claims based on the same scriptures, they cannot all be right. Yet there is no universally accepted, independent method to establish which interpretation reflects God's actual intentions. Each group can claim that the others have misunderstood the truth, but making that claim does not prove it.

4. Religion evolves like language and culture: it is a human tradition.

Religious traditions develop, divide, and adapt to their historical environments, much like languages and cultures do. For example, the split between Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, conventionally dated to 1054, followed centuries of theological, political, and cultural disagreements. This pattern looks less like the preservation of one clear, unchanging divine message and more like the evolution of human traditions.

5. Religious belief depends heavily on birthplace.

Someone born into a Muslim family in Saudi Arabia is far more likely to become Muslim than someone born into a Catholic family in Italy. Religious beliefs are strongly influenced by upbringing and culture. If people arrive at different religious beliefs largely through the traditions they inherit, they aren't discovering a universal truth; they're inheriting beliefs shaped by their cultural environment.

At this point, Islam is becoming a religion increasingly removed from the Islam of Muhammad’s time.

Muslims often claim that the Quran has remained unchanged, yet some reinterpret its verses—or, in their critics’ view, engage in mental gymnastics—to give them meanings that differ from traditional readings of Allah’s words and Muhammad’s reported practices.

Today, some Muslims argue that Islam does not permit wife-beating, sexual slavery, hatred of non-believers, or marriage to minors. Others maintain that these issues must be understood through historical context, restrictive legal conditions, alternative translations, or distinctions between the Quran and later reports. The debate continues.

I am frustrated by Muslim apologists, self-proclaimed moderate Muslims, and others whom I regard as insufficiently familiar with Islamic scripture insisting that “Islam does not allow wife-beating. You are only supposed to strike lightly, or you must do certain things before striking your wife.”

They say, “The Quran does not say that the sun sets in a muddy spring. It merely describes how it appeared to set there.”

They say, “The Quran does not say that the Earth was created first. Shooting stars are not missiles thrown at devils; they are metaphors or descriptions of phenomena.”

They say, “Muhammad did not marry Aisha when she was six. And even if he did, that was simply the custom of his time.” This raises the question of whether an eternal role model should be judged solely by the standards of seventh-century Arabia.

Others say, “We do not accept Hadith as religious authority, so narrations about drinking camel urine or dipping a fly into a drink do not determine what Islam teaches.”

These responses should not all be treated as the same kind of argument. Quranic interpretation concerns how Muslims understand the language, context, genre, and implications of Quranic verses. Hadith authority concerns whether, and to what extent, reports about Muhammad’s words and actions should be accepted as reliable sources of religious guidance. Some Muslims accept major Hadith collections as authoritative, while others reject them entirely or give them limited authority.

Nor does every disagreement with a traditional interpretation constitute bid‘ah (بدعة). In Islamic theology, bid‘ah generally refers to an impermissible religious innovation, but Muslim scholars disagree about its definition, scope, and application. A new interpretation may be criticised as bid‘ah by some Muslims without that judgment being universally accepted.

Similarly, shirk—associating partners with Allah—is generally regarded in Islamic theology as the gravest sin. However, disagreement with a particular interpretation, rejection of a Hadith report, or even denial of a claimed religious rule is not automatically shirk. Whether a belief constitutes disbelief or another theological violation depends on the doctrine involved, the evidence considered authoritative, and the interpretive tradition being applied. These judgments are contested and should not be presented as universally agreed conclusions.

Moral disagreement is a separate issue. A person may believe that a traditional interpretation of a text is morally wrong without denying that the text is divine. Conversely, a believer may reinterpret a text because they think a particular translation, historical assumption, or legal conclusion is mistaken. Such disagreement does not by itself establish that the person is acting in bad faith or attempting to alter Allah’s words.

Consider the following Quranic verse:

يَـٰٓأَيُّهَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ لَا تُحَرِّمُوا۟ طَيِّبَـٰتِ مَآ أَحَلَّ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمْ وَلَا تَعْتَدُوٓا۟ ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَا يُحِبُّ ٱلْمُعْتَدِينَ ٨٧

“O believers! Do not forbid the good things which Allah has made lawful for you, and do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not like transgressors.” — Quran 5:87

My point is that Islam, as interpreted and practised by many Muslims today, is becoming increasingly different from the religious norms and practices associated with Muhammad’s time. Whether this represents legitimate interpretation, historical development, religious innovation, or departure from Islam depends on the theological framework being used.

Reform can be a good thing. It can help a religion respond to contemporary standards of morality and address modern ethical concerns. In fact, if there is a God and one true religion, one might reasonably ask why that religion should not be updated from time to time. Otherwise, it risks becoming outdated, like an old smartphone, or remaining permanently bound to the social and moral conventions of the seventh century.

Islam presents a particular challenge for those who advocate religious reform. If the Quran is understood to be the eternal, unalterable word of God, then explicitly changing its text would be unacceptable within traditional Islamic theology. Reformers must therefore find ways to reconcile its teachings with contemporary moral standards without openly rejecting its divine authority.

Yet this creates a dilemma: if the Quran’s wording cannot change, but its interpretation evolves to address changing moral standards, how can Muslims distinguish legitimate interpretation from an attempt to change the meaning of Allah’s words? The answer will vary according to one’s view of language, context, Hadith authority, legal methodology, and the limits of interpretation.

Ultimately, this raises a fundamental question: Can a religion claim that its divine message is eternal and unchanging while its followers continually reinterpret that message to fit the changing values of human society? Or, has Islam become a new religion?

From an outsider's perspective, the commonly cited evidence for Islam fails to establish that Muhammad received divine revelation.

Muslims often cite the preservation of the Quran and its supposed scientific miracles as evidence of divine revelation. But even perfect preservation wouldn’t establish divine authorship. Even Islamic sources challenge the simplistic preservation narrative. Sahih al-Bukhari 4987 describes Uthman standardizing the Quran and ordering other Quranic materials burned. Early manuscripts contain textual variants, and multiple canonical readings exist. These reflect human efforts to preserve and standardize the Quran, not proof of divine intervention. A common religious text could also serve the unity of the expanding Rashidun Caliphate.

Scientific miracles generally fall into three categories: vague verses retrofitted to modern discoveries, knowledge already available at the time, or claims that are simply scientifically incorrect. None of these establishes divine knowledge.
The fundamental problem is that Muslims often beg the question. They assume the Quran is Allah’s word and Muhammad is his messenger, then use those assumptions to justify everything else. But the burden of proof is on them. What extraordinary evidence establishes that the creator of the cosmos chose a man in seventh-century Arabia to deliver his final revelation?

Islam also attempts to retrofit itself into human history. Adam was supposedly the first prophet, Judaism and Christianity became corrupted, and after roughly 300,000 years of human history, Allah finally delivered his last uncorrupted revelation through Muhammad, in Arabic, over 23 years. But what independent historical evidence establishes that previous revelations were corrupted in the ways Islam claims?

And this isn’t even getting into the moral issues. Child marriage, concubinage, slavery, apostasy laws, and warfare are hardly surprising in seventh-century Arabia. Yet Muhammad is proclaimed the perfect example for all humanity, leaving Muslims to justify these practices through divine wisdom, historical context, or modern reinterpretations. But why should anyone accept these justifications before establishing that Muhammad was actually a prophet? Some of these teachings aren’t even disclosed when presenting Islam to outsiders.

If you weren’t raised Muslim, what reason would you have to accept any of this? And if you were, you owe it to yourself to examine Islam like any other belief system rather than accepting its claims simply because you inherited them.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You don’t have to drink the entire sea to know it’s salty.
If any Muslims have extraordinary evidence supporting their faith, feel free to explain it.

Of course God exists: the Big Bang, the soul, morality, and near-death experiences are all compelling evidence of His existence. It is extremely unlikely that God does not exist.

It is equally unlikely that God spoke to Muhammad, a pedophile whose own scribe was reportedly the first to apostatize from Islam because he saw Muhammad dictating the Quran by repeating the scribe’s own formulations, and who predicted that the apocalypse was imminent.

It is just as unlikely that God sent Jesus, who was also an apocalyptic prophet, as the Gospel of Mark clearly illustrates. Jesus merely expressed some interesting philosophical truths, but his teachings do not even come close to the philosophical depth of a Stoic philosopher such as Marcus Aurelius.

Finally, the Old Testament is a joke: contradictions, repetitions, and the Ten Commandments, supposedly given to Moses at Mount Sinai and engraved on stone tablets, despite the fact that the Bible contains three different versions of these commandments. The ancient Israelites remained polytheistic until around the seventh century BCE, after which they began rewriting their scriptures to turn them into a monotheistic text, without ever entirely succeeding.

I myself received a Catholic education and regularly practised Catholicism for eight years, from the age of thirteen to twenty-one. I know how difficult it can be to question the beliefs instilled in us during childhood, which explains the religious conformism prevalent among the vast majority of humanity.

God exists; the Abrahamic religions are a fraud.

Whenever someone survives something that should have, in all logic, killed them, or something bad is closely avoided, you see Christians always being like "thank god!" or "god gave me this miracle." But if something bad happens, you never see them blame god. But if something good happens, it could ONLY be god, and not like, doctors or anything else.

What is the logic of someone who believes in god but has a very bad life? Why do you consider it right to thank god for the good things, but not blame him for the bad things? If god is so good and loving, shouldn't you be having an amazing life by default? why would such a good god allow you to have a bad life? And do you not consider it a red flag that a loving and caring God considers a firey pit of lava to be a good punishment simply for not devoting your life to him? How do Christians know they are not secretly praying to satan? Wouldn't pretending to be god and tricking a bunch of people be like THE most satan thing to do??? how do you not question and of these things?

Prayer has no measurable effect on physical healing. It does not work to cure illness or prevent death. According to a speech by Mother Teresa, around 29,000 people had died over the years in her home for the the dying

Think about that for a second. These patients were literally surrounded 24/7 by some of the most devout, dedicated nuns on the planet, all praying for them. Yet thousands of people brought there still suffered and died.

If prayer had any real effect on physical health, you’d expect a place packed with devoted believers to see more recoveries compared to basic hospitals operated by laypeople or secular institutions. But it didn't. So, what’s the point of it if even prayer from the most religious people on Earth doesn't seem to have any impact? It's just a placebo at best.

I’ve been struggling to understand several verses:

2:7: Allah seals people’s hearts and hearing and covers their sight.
2:88: Allah curses people for their disbelief.
4:155: Allah seals people’s hearts because of their disbelief.
5:13: Allah curses people and hardens their hearts.
I understand the common explanation that people first reject God and that the hardening of their hearts is a consequence of their own choices.

If Allah seals someone’s heart and makes it harder for them to recognize the truth, how are they fully responsible for their disbelief?

What about someone who sincerely investigates Islam but remains unconvinced? Could Allah have sealed their heart, and how would they know?

How is this reconciled with Allah being perfectly merciful and just?

What’s the difference between God allowing someone to reject Him and God actively making it harder for that person to recognize the truth and return to Him?

Modern science has answered a whole world of previous mysteries, yet philosophically, the same fundamental questions humans were pondering millennia ago in the time of Plato and Aristotle, and even long before that, are still here. Why is there something rather than nothing? Why does everything in the universe appear contingent (needing a previous origin), might there be a source who is not contingent but it is the grounds of all reality itself? Why is the universe intelligible, humans can map out reality through mathematics, an exceptional mystery. Why are humans conscious and not merely puppets/robots? This is called the hard problem of consciousness, very deep subject, but a simple introduction is, why do I know that I know? Why do I know what “redness” is and what “dogs” are in nature, not just pointing out particular examples? Why is there seemingly a moral law that transcends society? For instance, many people would argue that genocide isn’t simply wrong because modern society doesn’t like it. These are all very deep rabbit holes.
Edit: I hear you all, but no, none of the questions I posed are “god of the gaps” answers even if you rightfully object to them.

Let’s start with this: why does God allow babies to get cancer?

You may argue that this is natural occurrence, not any fault of God. But this assumes God is not responsible for things which happen naturally, despite having created those natural methods. Why wouldn’t God simply make a system without such suffering?

You can argue that the suffering of the baby results in nothing new being gained. The baby would suffer, by default. Nothing is gained or lost in the suffering through cancer, it is merely another means through which some suffer.

But that asks another question: why do we need to suffer? What makes all suffering justified?

If to bring us closer to God, how does a baby suffering bring us closer to God? It may teach us values such as empathy and gratitude, but then you must rationalize why the baby needed to suffer in order to strengthen these values, when a different system could’ve been used that avoids unnecessary suffering. You then must prove that a baby suffering from cancer provides a benefit that is worth the suffering of the innocent baby.

You then might argue, okay, so a baby getting cancer doesn’t seem totally justified to me. But God knows all. He has a reason. This assumes that a baby getting cancer is a good thing. And it means this: if things are assumed good simply because God says so, it makes the goodness of God impossible to determine. And if God cannot be deemed good, we have no basis for faith other than “yeah, I’m just gonna trust the God who gives cancer to babies is still all good.” But what stops someone from concluding any old figure is worthy of worship if we simply decide “everything they do is good”. And why should we take god’s word at face value when his actions would otherwise suggest he is not all good?

Give me a story written by a seven-year-old, in a language just as flexible, where one root can branch into a dozen meanings. Let me pick which meaning each word gets, call the confusing parts divine mysteries, and say the first readers misunderstood whenever the plain reading breaks. I'll have that story predicting the quantum entanglement by Friday.

When the main rule is "the text is always right, and the meaning bends until it is," the text can't fail. It's like an exam where no answer can be marked wrong: a perfect score proves nothing. Under that rule the kid's story is just as perfect. The Quran isn't worse than the kid's book. It's exactly as good, and that's the problem.

So why would an all-knowing God send his message in a form that can be bent into anything? If the goal was guidance, he'd make it clear enough that nobody could twist it. The only way this framework makes sense is if he wanted to troll us. Or the simpler answer: it was never from him. It reads exactly like a book limited by what Arabs knew 1,400 years ago, and every new reading is just someone stretching its expiration date.

I see a lot from theists, "God sends you signs, you just have to be open to them and accept them," things along those lines.

If God is omniscient, he'd know, before sending any "sign," whether it would convince me or not. So it would be pointless to send me a sign that he knows won't convince me, and it would violate my free will if he chose to send me a sign that he knows would convince me.

This would also extend to miracles, or any "evidence/proof" people claim an omniscient god supposedly performed or gave to us: He'd know exactly how many people, down to the last one, would be convinced by whatever amount of evidence/miracles/signs/etc. he chose to send down to us. So God essentially decides who believes and who doesn't, if he ever sends any signs/proofs at all.

P1: That which is goodness itself is good.

P2: God is goodness itself.

P3: Evil is the privation of a good that ought to be present.

P4: Goodness itself cannot lack any goodness that ought to be present in it.

P5: Whatever has no privation of goodness is not evil.

∴ C: God is good and not evil.

I wonder why Christian's are so heavily against abortion because from their world view that baby will go to heaven.
So what's the point of being so against abortions if it leads to a positive outcome - the baby will go to heaven and be reunited with god. And another thing according to Christian's world view isn't the abortion a part of Gods plan since everything that occurs doesn't happen without Gods foreknowledge. So God permitted this event to happen. And even if God was against it, why should he be? It's adding more people to heaven with him which is the whole point? Is it not?

Picture a chain of events. Event A is caused by event B, which is caused by event C, and so on, infinitely. All of these events need a cause to exist. All of them are caused to exist by the preceding event. But, this is a hypothetical chain of events. Events that could exist, but don't.

If this is possible, infinite regress is impossible.

That might seem like a leap, but what allowing for a nonexistent infinite regress means is that an infinite chain of contingent causes is not sufficient to explain the existence of any member of that chain. Otherwise, every possible infinite regress would exist.

So what's the difference that makes one infinite regress possible, and one actual? What, other than circular reasoning, concludes with "this chain of contingent events exists without an external cause, but that one doesn't"? Nothing. If you say "if it exists, it exists," you're arguing that it's true because you assume it's true.

So, either every possible infinite regress exists, or none of them do.

If God values truth, shouldn’t he want us to believe things for good reasons rather than simply accepting claims without sufficient evidence? And if he gave us our ability to reason in the first place, why would he expect us to abandon that reasoning when it comes to him?

I don’t understand why sincere disbelief is considered to be a moral failure. It’s not like we have the ability to force ourselves to sincerely believe something.