One argument is based on analogy, likening our understanding of God's motives to those of a child grasping a parent's reasons for seeking painful medical treatment, for example.
Other approaches are the limitations on the human ability to understand the moral realm, and appeals to epistemic factors such as sensitivity or contextual requirements.
[8] In the philosophy of religion, skeptical theism is not a broad skepticism toward human knowledge of God, but is instead putatively presented as a response to philosophical propositions, such as those focused on drawing "all things considered" inductive conclusions about God's motives from perceived circumstances.
God, by the orthodox view, is thought to be omniscient (all-knowing), omnibenevolent (all-good) and omnipotent (all-powerful).
As originally proposed by agnostic philosopher Paul Draper, the view is intended to undercut a key premise in the argument from evil by suggesting that human cognitive faculties could be insufficient to permit drawing inductive inferences concerning God's reasons or lack of reasons for permitting perceived evils.
Therefore, Rowe concludes, it is likely that no state of affairs exists that would morally justify that being in permitting such suffering.
To justify this conclusion, the skeptical theist argues that the limits of human cognitive faculties are grounds for skepticism about our ability to draw conclusions about God's motives or lack of motives; it is therefore reasonable to doubt the second premise.