I'm currently reading a book called there is no/a God by Anthony Flew. It's a really thick read to be honest and sometimes, I find it hard to catch onto the concepts that he is writing about, just because of the scholarly level it is written at. You see, I didn't finish high school and I've had to work very hard at educating myself to where I'm at now. Anyhow, this one concept he talks about I've been mulling over quite a bit in my head. He talks about how in Christian apologetics, sometimes it's not about being right or wrong. Sometimes, the question is incompatible with the answers. That doesn't mean much but I'll describe with a scenario I've encountered several times.
A very common question I've been asked is "how can there be a God with all the horrible things that happen in the world." One answer could be that the Lord givith and the Lord taketh away. Not something that is swallowed easily. Another could be that war, disease, natural disasters hatred for our neighbors, etc, are just government, society and ecosystem expressions or consequence of the state the world is in. There are a plethora of other answers but those are a couple. So how does that answer anything? How does any answer answer anything. It's been proven that you can't change a persons mind by arguing with them so is spewing out answers or arguing with them incompatible with the question? Is there a right or wrong answer or are all answers incompatible with those questions? Could that incompatibility be based on the state of the person asking the question? Anyway, what do you guys think?