Can a religion make sense without answering all the core life questions?

Answering this question requires splitting it into two parts: what are the core life questions, and what parameters make a religion sensible?

What are the core life questions?

Below are some of those basic questions:

  1. Why am I here / Why do I exist / What is the greater purpose of my life?
    • If there is no ultimate purpose from my existence nor any reason for it, this would collide with many logical inquisitions, leaving them unsatisfactorily answered:
      • Why then are our lives so detailed in many aspects, such as in our bodies (down to our cellular constituents), the amazing patterns and variations in living creatures around us, and the solar system? What is the origin of all of this and how did it all start? Is it simply coincidental and pointless?
      • Wouldn’t that mean that the death of me personally (or anyone else, or even all of us) would make absolutely no difference in this Universe? Why would it matter how we die then?
      • Why continue living? Yet why does a person feel tremendously terrified if he tries to commit suicide? Isn’t that fear from suicide something being programmed in our instincts? If so, then who or how was this code (to fear suicide) programmed into us?
      • If there is no purpose from our lives, then why would a person feel unsatisfied/unfulfilled/bored/depressed even when he has gathered all the life goals of any human being (money, wife, children, authority)?
      • Why does doing all life pleasures (even the mischievous ones) still leave a person unhappy, realizing it especially when his life slows down due to an illness or when being alone?
    • If there is a greater purpose from my life, what is it then? How do I find it out and know that this is truly it?
  2. Does it matter if I do moral or immoral actions (right and wrong)? How do I finely distinguish between moral and immoral matters?
    • If it doesn’t matter, these questions arise:
      • Then why does it hurt when I do it? Why would a person, including those around him, feel guilty if he tortures a puppy for example?
      • Since I can’t specify immoral from moral,how can I prevent myself from falling into something immoral out of ignorance/inexperience, with the consequential suffering of guilt?
      • Why do I feel more suffocated the more I commit immorality then?
    • If it does matter:
      • Then who is the single one that has the right and the utmost wisdom to define what is immoral from what is moral? It can’t be from more than one source, because this will lead to two different opinions regarding a single matter. For example: alcohol is considered moral in some countries whilst immoral in others.
      • What is the consequence if I do immoral actions? Will I be left without punishment, which makes these rules pointless, or must I be punished for them?
      • If I avoid immorality and stay moral, what compensation will I be given for suffering the injustice of being stepped on from other people who resort to immorality? How good will this compensation be? Will it leave me admitting that I am more than satisfied through its justice system?
      • If I committed a lot of immorality and harmed a lot of people/animals, but now I suffer a lot of guilt from it up to the point of wishing I had done things differently in the past, is there a way for me to make amends? Can I truly prove that I regret? Or is it inevitable that I get punished in any case? Is there no way to come clean of an immature or reckless past, even after admitting error?
  3. Why is there so much suffering/evil in this world? Why do bad things befall even upon good people and children?
    • If it is just random, then why does it nag at the conscience of the witnesses of the tragedy, sometimes even infuriating them?
    • If it is caused from a superior entity, then what can possibly be the purpose or benefit from it? And how can a very severe misfortune possibly be recompensed, if there is a re-compensation for such things in the first place?
    • If it was due to human causation and allowed by a superior entity, then why was such severe suffering left to befall and not prevented?
    • What about situations I can offer ease to others, am I required to? For example: is the abundance of money that I gathered accompanied by an obligation upon me to help those without money, even if they don’t want to work, are inept, or don’t have skill in earning money? Another example: a person has been injured in an accident or being assaulted from someone, must I try to assist or may I just watch/pass by?
  4. What is the purpose from death? What happens after it? Why are we (and animals too) designed to fear it? Is the moment of death something I can prepare for whilst alive? Are there things I do in my life that can alter the events that I pass through after dying?
  5. If there truly is an ultimate entity (God), why didn’t it reveal itself directly to us all, to end this continuous argumentation about whether it exists or not?

What parameters make a religion sensible?

The parameters that make a religion sensible is that it should conform with unbiased logical deductions. This deduction comes through observations obtained from reality, followed by assessment of these observations, whilst avoiding the subjective interference of emotions/desires. Here is the chain of the most logical deductions, concerning religion, and how they are derived:

  1. Before differing about religion, we should all start from the last unified (in human opinion) ground, and that is: Since we are an intelligent species, if there is a religion/belief to be followed, then it is fundamental that it is identifiable through applying our minds. Otherwise, the purpose of our minds on that matter would have been wasted, and having this advantage (the mind) is pointless.
    • This concept should not be disagreeable by any human, even atheists and agnostics, but they conclude there is no rightful religion to be followed. Other factions apply their minds and conclude that religion ‘X’ is the rightful religion to be followed.
    • This concept fundamentally negates that faith is purely a belief-based matter. It should be based on both: logic and belief. If we eliminate our minds in accepting a religion, then how can we recognize the rightful one from the false ones amidst this array of religions?
    • Moreover, relying on emotions/instinct alone will cause the person to go astray. This has been evaluated by every single one of us, in which emotions had influenced us to make a wrong (sometimes even absurd) decision in the course of our lives.
  2. The next logical conclusion is (and this is where people’s opinions start to differ): all that exists around us must be created by some entity; it is too detailed and organized to be coincidental. Coincidental factors include attributing it to nature/evolution, because intelligent life forms cannot spur from an unintelligent process, i.e. the trial and error process. The probability of this array of living species occurring by chance is just too minuscule to be rationally accepted, if that probability can be accurately calculated in the first place.
    • Believing in evolution is similar to believing that a thousand units of a market product in the supermarket was produced by a machine that was assembled without planning. This would also boil down to believing that an atom created itself.
    • This deduction (of creationism) is not anti-scientific moreover, since there is no tangible evidence about evolution till now; it is just an unproven theory. If evolution existed, then cancer would be considered as a failed attempt at evolution, since it is the change in the behavior of cells, which evolution is definitely based on. However, how many of us saw or heard of cancerous tissue turning into a functional organ or into a new species?
    • This chain of thought annuls atheism (belief that there is no God). It also annuls agnosticism (claiming that there is no proof for God), since the proof of God is manifested in what He created without seeing Him directly, i.e. His existence is apparent in what and how He created it. If someone sees a helicopter for the first time in his life, and asks about it, but he is told that it just came into existence by itself, would he get convinced? That person definitely recognizes that the helicopter is created, but not necessarily WHO created it.
  3. That entity, the creator, can be only one. If there was more than one entity, many problems would arise, obviating the illogicality of that assumption. Some problems include:
    • If there was more than one creator, the Universe would be in chaos, since every creator would operate what he created independent from the other creators, causing planets to collide together for example.
    • If just one of them operates what the others created, then the operating one would not be the superior since he couldn’t create what the others created. On the other hand, the non-operators won’t be the superior ones since they are not allowed control over what they created themselves.
    • If it is argued that all those creators worked in coordination with each other to provide an organized Universe, then none of them would actually have free will, since each would need to consult and abide with the others’ circumstances.
    • Another consequence if there was more than one creator is that clashes would initiate between them. This would happen due to an inevitable attempt by one of them to have the dominant opinion and authority, who dictates over some/all of the others. This would also lead to a chaotic Universe that would collapse, however the Universe has been operational for millions of years.
    • This entity cannot have any offspring too, since the offspring will have some (or all) of the features of it, leading to the existence of more than one entity.
    • Thus, a single creator with absolute will is the logical deduction, since we as humans have a great deal of free will (not absolute free will though). This excludes polytheism (the belief in multiple Gods).
  4. Since everything around us is created, that creator must be superior to what He created, otherwise He would have been unable to create it in the first place. A supercomputer with artificial intelligence cannot, in practicality, become smarter (nor even as smart) as human beings, since its intelligence is derived from (therefore limited up till) our intelligence.
    • If we follow this chain of thought, i.e. that a creationist human (being able to manufacture machines and such) must be created from a creationist entity; that a large Universe must be created from a larger entity; that powerful events in the Universe must be created from a more powerful source, we will reach one conclusion this way. That conclusion is that this entity must also be ultimate in every aspect, where all factors point; i.e. the dominant entity in which all superior features are present, and where all the superior factors reach.
    • Why do these superior factors eventually meet? Consider this mathematical similitude: what is the quantitative difference between 2 and 3; small. On the other hand, between 2 and 1000000 is a large difference. However, if any value, whether 2, 3 or 1000000, keeps being squared (multiplied by itself), it will eventually reach a value that we eventually cannot comprehend (similar to the error sign on the calculator, done by dividing 1 with 0), which we call infinity. In the end, no matter what the starting number was, they all become closer to each other when propagated, until they meet by turning into infinity. The only difference is the number of times each figure needs to multiply before turning into infinity, so some figures reach infinity later than others, but all of them reach there.
    • Thus, this entity not only has all the superior features, it has them at the ultimate level (absolute, maximal). This means that this entity is not bound by anything, not even space and time.
    • This also leads to the conclusion that this creator cannot have been created, because then it wouldn’t be the ultimate creator. For us to try to comprehend how it was created would be like a computer trying to know and comprehend , by itself, how humans drink water to survive. It can’t be done unless if it sees us drinking or we inform it about this fact, because the basis of our essences are totally different, the computer can’t measure us with its rules. Similarly, we can’t measure this entity with our rules. We can’t, for example, expect proof for this question: is a whale strong enough to lift a desk? We definitely know it can, but the parameters are invalid, since for the whale to lift a desk we need to pull the whale out of its water, which weakens it; or put the desk in the water for the whale, causing the desk to be easier to lift.
    • Moreover, this entity cannot consist of multiple aspects/natures/forms. If it consists of multiple forms at different instances, then its existence in one form negates its existence in another, meaning it is incomplete and partially weak, since it partially exists and perishes. If it consists of multiple forms at the same instance, that will mean that it is not homogeneous, so there will be discrepancies within itself. There would be flaws between these instances because a transition from forms requires that some features/specifications are dropped whilst others are introduced. In any case, consisting of multiple forms would negate that it is truly a single entity, which was excluded previously. Perfection is the presence of all the positive aspects in just one instance, and not in multiple instances.
    • Moreover, this entity should not need to change forms to enforce its will (perform something), since it will mean that it has limits (compelling it to change form) and weaknesses (cannot perform something sometimes). If it needs to change form/nature to accomplish something, then it is not ultimately able nor ultimately powerful.
  5. Therefore, this entity is singular, it exists in just one unchanging form, free from any limitations and flaws. The relation of all of this to the topic of religion is presented in the following points:
    • We, as humans by nature, need to have a link with this entity. Otherwise, we would feel lost for not having an ultimate power to refer to for guidance, nor having it to resort to in our times of weakness. This would be like a compass needle circling around rapidly not knowing where north is. In our case, we would feel unsettled spiritually, manifested as feelings of emptiness or suffocation every now and then.
      • We would feel lost without it due to the absence of moral guidelines from the ultimately knowledgeable and wise entity, which knows where our overall benefit lies and what is overall harmful to us. For example, when two people argue whether gambling is right or wrong, the matter is decisively settled due to the presence of a divine guideline. This effectively assists us in being able to place a civil law that prohibits gambling, ultimately leading to the benefit of humanity by averting harmful habits to humanity as a whole.
      • We would feel that our lives are pointless because there would be no ultimate entity to whom we return to after death, who will enact ultimate justice between us humans/living beings in general. Logically however, ultimate justice must eventually be accomplished, effectively being achieved when every single one of us is repaid the injustices done to him from every individual who caused him an injustice. This necessitates ultimate detail and precision, under an absolute/ultimate authority having absolute knowledge (including the branching issues connected with the incident, such as the concealed intention and chain of thoughts of the assaulter).
      • Considering this, that entity must have opened a means of communication (which is in terms of a religion it revealed) between humans and it, otherwise its creating of the human species would have been pointless or for amusement (i.e. by creating them and then leaving them). These are behaviors (pointless actions, amusing itself) that are inappropriate for an ultimate entity, because this would detract from it the feature of being ultimately wise.
      • This route of communication must definitely contain some information about the ultimate entity, instructions about the path to connect with it. But most crucially, it must provide a verification process that this information came from the ultimate entity and not from a false source.
    • This religion must be singular as this entity is singular: one path leads to a singular entity. Many paths would mean confusion for us, leaving us unsettled and unfulfilled. Additionally, multiple paths logically means that there is one that is the most efficient amidst them, rendering the rest inefficient, or even ineffective, in connecting with the ultimate entity. Thus there is just one rightful religion, the one that was truly sent from it.
    • Since this religion came from it, it can’t be exclusive to just a certain faction of humans, meaning that anyone can convert to it. If it was exclusive to just a certain faction of humans according to inherited features, then it would be an injustice done to the rest of humanity from that ultimate entity, which cannot possibly occur for this entity to have the feature of ultimate justice. This concept also rules out that embracing this rightful religion requires the approval from any human being. It is the ultimate entity’s religion, only it can reject/deny someone from it. Reaching safety should be open to all, i.e. within anyone’s reach. It should be simple and achievable, since the fate of each one of us personally is a critical matter.
    • Ignoring this religion means cutting the connection between the individual and this entity, rendering the whole purpose of the individual’s existence pointless or even detrimental in the Universe. The individual becomes detrimental by causing a negative influence on this Universe, manifested in the form of causing corruption on Earth and tearing the bonds of kinship, or the very least: by being a creature that consumes from the Universe (eating, drinking, producing waste products, drawing and storing from its resources such as iron/gold/silver/cotton/wood). Moreover, ignoring this message (the religion sent from that entity) is a declaration that he regards what this superior entity did as being pointless. Thus, disregarding the rightful religion undoubtedly deserves punishment from this entity.
    • Since punishment for not following the religion is sensible, this religion MUST be, undoubtedly, identifiable by any human. Otherwise, it would be an injustice done to humans from that entity, since they couldn’t recognize it yet are punished for not following it. Doing an injustice is an act of weakness, because it means that an individual is compelled (needs) to resort to crooked/deviant methods to accomplish something. Inability/having needs/being compelled/being immoral are all features contradictory to being ultimately powerful and ultimately pure.
    • The method of recognition of this rightful religion must fulfill two aspects, for us to be able to identify it from amidst this array of different religions:
      1. By utilizing abilities given to us from that entity. Our most unique ability from other species is of course: our minds. Thus, this religion MUST be logically verifiable that it came from that entity, and MUST make complete sense when explaining life issues, i.e. our core life questions.
      2. This religion must conform with what that entity already programmed in us: our instinct. Thus, the rightful religion should not violate what our human instincts regard as moral and immoral (right and wrong), i.e. harmonize/resonate with our instincts.


Tying the logical answers to the two sub-questions yields the answer to the main question: No, a religion cannot be considered sensible if it cannot answer our core life questions. This is because if it doesn’t answer our core life questions, then how can it be unique from other religions. If it can’t answer our life questions, then it isn’t from the all-knowing entity.

Those who do not reach/recognize the logical deductions mentioned above need to observe, contemplate, and possibly even need to encounter more life experiences. However, doing this with an objective perspective is fundamental, to avoid emotional influences which lead to a deviation in results. Opinions that try to discredit these logical deductions inevitably have logical pitfalls from one angle or another, but respectful discussion is open, and welcomed, below.

These deductions are the basis for anyone in finding the rightful religion through reason. I have discussed these deductions a bit further in my book, accompanied by answers to core life questions mentioned above. More importantly, I indicated what that rightful religion is (with evidence), which conforms with all of these deductions and provided these logical answers to all our life questions:

The religion that captivated minds with its logic

final cover