To tackle your question, this ties into the notion of the test that Islam holds. The Quran states that Allah created death and life to test us in our actions (67:2). Had Allah been known, then there would be no test. People would not act sincerely based upon their desires had Allah been visible as the sun. For example, a robber would not rob a bank knowing for sure they'd get caught, unless they want to get caught.
And don't you think that an all powerfull, all knowing being like Allah would be able to distinguish such pretenders from sincere folks?
Similarly, an employee that doesn't feel like doing work will be productive if their boss is looking directly at their screen. They'll stay at it until the boss leaves.
And as a boss myself, I can tell you that it would be childsplay to distinguish such workers with actual sincerely motivated workers. And as a boss myself, I can guarantee you to such workers wouldn't be on my payroll very long.
Had Allah been a fact like 2+2=4 then that would leave no room for other possibilities, and it would remove the concept of faith. One doesn't believe in facts, rather they just know them.
True. And why would you believe anything that isn't somehow based in fact (evidence)?
If this all knowing god is real, then I'ld expect such an entity to prefer rationality and rational belief over irrationality and irrational belief. It would value reason.
And believing things without evidence, not based in fact, is not
reasonable nor
rational.
Furthermore, what you are saying here is that the thing that matters in the "test" is people's sincerity in terms of intent and underlying motivations for the decisions they make and the actions they engage in.
It seems to me that if that is the case, then the specific religious details and tales and stuff are completely irrelevant. In fact, following your own logic, an entire book dedicated to "warning" wrong doers by threatening them with eternal torment, or rewarding "right doers" with eternal bliss", would, in fact, accomplish
exactly that which you are saying is supposed to be avoided: that people aren't sincere in their actions and they instead engage in them for selfish reasons (ie: NOT being subject to eternal torment or being rewarded with eternal bliss).
So a believing muslim doesn't rob a bank "because the religion says it's no good" and he doesn't want to go to hell. Is that a good motivation?
Meanwhile, the non-believing atheist doesn't rob a bank because <insert actual reasoned moral argument concerning societal health / security / empathy etc>.
Who then has the superior moral values here? The one who does things for eternal reward or to avoid eternal doom? Or the one who doesn't believe in either and just does good for the sake of doing good, because being moral is its own reward?
So really, the way I see it, if we were to take your logic on this issue and drive it home.... then islam shouldn't even exist.
We also have to be real, there are a lot of people that wouldn't be able to mentally take such a phenomenon.
Why?
Isn't the allmighty, allknowing omnipotent creator of the universe capable of communicating or manifesting in such a way that our brains aren't fried?
Sounds a bit like a contradiction, doesn't it...
Lastly, one can make an argument that the inner dialogs that humans have could come from an angelic voice. Allah knows best.
Imo, one can make a much better argument that the phenomenon is also known as "thinking" and "empathy".
