When asked about why evil exists in a world created by a loving god, a theist will often reply that it is all part of their god's plan, i.e. any evil that occurs in the world is not god being evil, but rather due to us failing to understand how it is good. In this vein, they suggest that there are two standards of morality, the human morality that says it is wrong to allow a child to die of a hideous disease, and god's incomprehensible morality that evidently supports this.

The problem here is that if we accept that there is dissonance between our and god's morality, there may be similiar dissonance elsewhere, for example in the definition of love. If we love someone, then we would never do anything to hurt them. God, however, is according to some prepared to send his creations to hell for not following his rules. This line of thinking now becomes disturbing. What if god's incomprehensible version of love is to decieve us, to convince us of his existence through miracles or through scientific proof (not yet seen) but then punish those who believe in him and follow his rules. Remember, this is highly plausible from what we have already seen; if god thinks allowing people to suffer in this world is love, then mabye deception and (human) injustice are also what he/she views as love. God is described in the bible as truthful (2 Samuel 7:28), but ignoring this blatant begging the question (god is trustworthy because he says so), what if god views truth as different? What if ideas have different meanings for god and us as has already been demonstrated with other words? What if we simply "cannot comprehend" the real nature of truth?

As we do not know the probability distribution of god, we can not say that a truthful god is more likely than a deceptive one, and so nothing is to be gained from worshiping him/her should his/her existence ever be shown to be true. Appealing to incomprehensibility is not a wise strategy,