We hear a lot of times theists making the case that god must have morally sufficient reasons for doing something the way he does but that we don’t know or cannot know those reasons. Well this is essentially tantamount to those two old adages, “The lord works in mysterious ways” and “Who can know the mind of god?” When I was a kid and was debating about god with my grandmother, who was a devout Catholic, whenever she came to a tough answer that she didn't know, she’d always resort to that old saying. But if your line of reasoning concludes with basically admitting that it doesn't make sense and that you don’t know how to answer it, then when I place this up against the naturalistic explanation and compare the two – naturalism vs. the lord works in mysterious ways – then to me it seems perfectly reasonable and logical to conclude with the naturalistic explanation over the theistic admittance of ignorance.
Why is it that we need to rely on “sophisticated theologians” to give us “reasonable” answers to religion’s toughest questions? Why aren't the answers obvious or at least more easily knowable if they indeed are true? For example, if your evidence that Jesus rose from the dead is based on what you think most New Testament scholars say, then it’s true that most people over the past two thousand years have not been able to have access to what any scholars have had to say on whether or not Jesus existed or rose from the dead. Most people over the past two thousand years were illiterate and completely uneducated. They were forced to believe in god and Jesus’ divinity, purely on faith. So if god wanted us to have evidence to know he’s real and that Jesus is his son (or himself), why is it that this “evidence” was unavailable to billions of people throughout history? And even then, the evidence is speculative at best in many areas, just as the Christian justifications for the problem of evil are.