Also, it is also possible that we as humans living on earth just cannot comprehend God.
Going by Biblical literalism, it's significantly more than possible. It's pretty much a definite.
While true, that's always struck me as one of the worst cop-outs religion in general tends to pull. I just woke up, so the words aren't quite coming right, but... "It can't be understood" is, just... not a point for, or something like that. It's functionally no different from saying, "It's entirely arbitrary" or "It's just bughumping insane". When you consider the ethics of belief, especially with regard to something as important as religion claims to be (the soul, afterlife, weighed in relation to the eternal consequences, etc.), choosing to believe in something you don't and (significantly worse)
can't understand is, just... bad. Bad form, bad idea, the list just rolls on. Science and whatnot get away with it a bit because at least that stuff is trying
fix the situation, but with religion it's always brought up as a sort of conversation stopper. "I can't, therefore you cannot claim I should and must accede my suppositions are unassailable." It also seems to be done with the intent that since
total comprehension is impossible,
lesser comprehension(s) are
also meaningless -- that the overall nature of the entity is such that it overrides entirely the nature of its lesser actions. It's basically saying that because god is unknowable, its
every action is incapable of being assessed and has no bearing on an evaluation of its actions (current, past, potential future, whatever).
From a human perspective that's just... abhorrent? Significantly unwise? We've seen that sort of belief in human history, many times over -- the king's actions are unknowable to the peasant, therefore the king's rape and murder of the peasantry should not be questioned. The general's intent is unknowable to the soldier, therefore the soldier should follow the order to massacre civilians without hesitation. It just goes on, and on, and on. Maybe it's even true, but that doesn't mean it's right for the soldiers and the peasantry to accept it as true, y'know?
---
S'also an implicit denial of the critter's omnipotence, heh -- it's saying that if god
wanted to (and nevermind the implications that it wants mankind to live in ignorance of its nature, instead), it
couldn't make humans living on earth comprehend it, if nothing else at least
well enough for people to make appropriate decisions regarding the thing.