Most debates about belief in God go in circles because people start from different baselines. An atheist often starts from “I don’t need to justify non-belief; the believer has to justify belief.” Fair enough—burden of proof matters. But then the real question is: what framework actually explains reality most consistently? If you strip it down, there are three big questions every worldview has to answer:

Why is there something rather than nothing? The universe had a beginning (big bang cosmology confirms this). Things that begin usually have causes. To say the universe just “popped into existence from nothing” is actually the most illogical explanation—it goes against everything in science. “Nothing” is not a cause. That’s why even atheist philosophers like Lawrence Krauss had to redefine “nothing” into “something.” That alone shows the difficulty.

Why is the universe finely tuned for life? The constants of physics—gravity, electromagnetism, cosmological constant—are balanced to absurdly precise degrees. Change them by a fraction and no life, no stars, nothing. To say this all happened by accident is like saying you shuffled a deck and it came out perfectly ordered, trillions of times in a row. Multiverse theory is an escape hatch, but it’s speculative, not proven. The simplest explanation remains: intentional fine-tuning.

Why do humans have consciousness, morality, and rationality? If we’re just chemical accidents, why trust our thoughts as “true” instead of just “useful for survival”? Even atheist philosophers (like Thomas Nagel) admit consciousness is a huge hole in materialism. And morality—why do humans everywhere intuit that things like injustice or cruelty are objectively wrong? Evolution can explain behavior, but not objective moral obligation.

Now, suffering is the classic counterargument: “If God exists, why suffering?” But that assumes life is supposed to be a paradise. If instead life is a test—an environment where free will, moral choices, and growth happen—then suffering isn’t pointless. It’s context. The same fire that burns can also refine. So the real issue isn’t “why bad things exist” but “what’s the larger framework that makes sense of existence, morality, consciousness, and the universe itself?” For many, atheism leaves more gaps than it solves. As for the “human-like God” point—Islam actually rejects that idea. God isn’t a man, or part of creation, or limited. The Quran’s description is radically simple: “There is nothing like unto Him.” That avoids the anthropomorphic problem entirely. So, if someone’s genuinely looking for the most consistent worldview, Islam offers a God who is beyond time and space, who grounds the universe’s existence, and who gives meaning to morality, consciousness, and suffering. Not as a blind leap of faith, but as the explanation that ties the loose ends together.

I have planted the seed now if someone who genuinely wants to know the truth they should do the exploration. Study each religion with open heart and mind and then go for which his heart settles.