Thanks for the ping.
“1. Your god is supreme, and can do whatever it wants. 2. Humans cannot understand why your god does certain things - they are beyond normal comprehension.”
First, let’s acknowledge that number one above is as solid a reason as any could ever be. No refutation of it makes sense.
We have no choice but to acknowledge that things and ideas exist in hierarchies. The “Golden Rule” does not supersede God’s authority or supreme will.
Looking at number two—it’s another “mode of reasoning” for which there is no logical refutation. For example, imagine one possible argument: we can understand everything God does. Now, does that sound reasonable?
Would it ever make sense, under any contortion of the imagination, for you to expect your dog to turn to you on some sunny day in the park and say fetch, James? Or for a salamander to pass the final exam in an advanced physics course?
To attempt judgement of Divine Intent (Lord forgive us) is more absurd than believing you can build a nuclear powered submarine with nothing but a four year old child’s tinker toys.
What source informs us that we can use human standards to judge God’s will? And if you’re not using human standards, please explain what kind of standards you’re using.
Here’s the insurmountable problem for the atheist/agnostic argument: the claim that God’s actions don’t meet secular human standards of morality is not a refutation of God’s existence.
If anything, it accepts the premise of God’s existence.
1. Your god is supreme, and can do whatever it wants (even order genocides and child slaughter).
First, let’s acknowledge that number one above is as solid a reason as any could ever be. No refutation of it makes sense.
Who? Allah?
What source informs us that we can use human standards to judge God’s will?
What else does being created in a deity's image entail, other than that the created perceive similar codes of morality as the entity it was modelled after? To avoid this conclusion by surrendering to the statement that your god can do whatever it pleases, including such abhorrent things violating the Golden Rule as ordering child-slaughter, is to accept a serious moral contradiction in your own accepted dogma. The fact that this problem is so inadequately addressed in the circles of theology reveals the inclination to ignore and shrug under the proverbial carpet, this serious, serious moral flaw.