An argument often encountered in theology is that if aspect of theism appears illogical it is just because, as finite creatures, we are incapable of understanding an infinite God.
...snip...
Sadly, this type of argument is quite common while appreciation of its further implications is scarce. Many believers tend to compound the speciousness of the argument by dismissing logic as "just another belief system" of equal validity to belief in (a) god(s) without due regard for the fact that logic has served mankind far more fruitfully, reliably and consistently than god beliefs. Difficulties arise as soon as one ascribes more than one
distinct property of a
limitless kind (e.g. omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, etc.) to a god since one can imagine situations wherein two or more such characteristics will be in tension with one another.
If believers were to face up to these profound problems (which, incidentally, are independent of the specific content of assorted religious dogmas), they would have to acknowledge that any statement of the kind, "God is X" is self-defeating since it either conflicts with another statement of a similar kind for a different value of "X", or it encumbers god with a limit. Consequently, the only sane approach is to remain completely silent about any assumed attributes of god. However, such silence would not accord with worship, as required by religious ritual, and the religion would quickly die of over-diversification and/or under-subscription.
To avoid the aforementioned outcomes, the dogma includes the escape hatch outlined in your post: if in doubt, god rules. In this view, suffering is directly attributable to our inability to comprehend or, apparently, to influence such an ineffable god. It isn't so much that Western monotheistic dogmas promise that the reason(s) for suffering will become clear, as that the suffering will evermore be banished. This promise is quite comforting if you assume that your consciousness will persist more-or-less unaltered forever.
I don't.
'Luthon64
