𝐎𝐧 𝐆𝐨𝐝 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐒𝐮𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠

The problem of suffering is one of the most common objections atheists use to justify their worldview.

Many people bring up the problem of suffering as if it’s an obvious refutation of God’s existence.

On an emotional level it’s understandable…

Suffering is real, painful, and emotional.

But I think there’s a major confusion here that needs to be cleared up, and I want to explain why the argument doesn’t work.

To explain why this isn’t actually a problem, we need to talk about what God is. God is a perfect being, perfect in goodness, wisdom, and power. To be at fault is to make an error. But by definition, a perfect being cannot make errors. So if God allows suffering, then He must have a perfectly good reason for allowing it. Whether we understand that reason or not does not change the fact that it exists. That is what it means to say God is perfect.

The problem with the atheist’s argument is that they’re assuming that if suffering exists, then God would be in the wrong for allowing it. They assume that if God existed, He must stop all suffering, and if He does not, then He must not be real. But this assumption completely misunderstands the nature of God.

Here’s where we need to slow down and really look at what’s happening.

A lot of people treat suffering like it’s straightforward evidence that God doesn’t exist. But in doing that, they’re assuming something they haven’t proven, namely, that a perfect God could not possibly allow suffering. But why should we assume that?

That only follows if you already believe that suffering and God are logically incompatible. In other words, the atheist is begging the question. They are assuming the very thing they’re trying to prove.

If God is perfect, perfect in wisdom, goodness, and power, then by definition, He cannot allow unjustified suffering. So if suffering exists, and God exists, then there must be a morally sufficient reason for it, even if we don’t know what it is.

So the existence of suffering is not actually evidence against God. It only looks like it is if you already assume He doesn’t exist or that He’s imperfect. But that’s not an argument. It’s just a restatement of disbelief.

This makes the whole objection more like an argument from ignorance. It says, “I don’t see any reason for this suffering, so there must not be one.” But that doesn’t follow. Not seeing a reason isn’t the same as there being no reason. It’s like watching a brain surgeon and not understanding what he’s doing. The fact that it looks wrong to you doesn’t mean it is wrong. It just means you don’t know enough to judge it.

The atheist is assuming that God is the kind of being who could make moral mistakes, but that is the opposite of what the concept of God means. They are trying to use suffering to morally accuse a being who, by definition, cannot be morally wrong. That is a contradiction.

Now I know what people will say at this point. They’ll say, “So you are telling me that children suffering is good?” No. That is not what I am saying. I am not saying suffering is good. I am not saying tragedies are beautiful or desirable. I am saying that God is not to blame for them. There is a big difference.

God can allow something bad to happen without Himself being bad. Why? Because whatever reason He has for allowing it must be a good reason. That is the only thing that follows from the fact that God is perfect. Just because something looks wrong to us does not mean it is actually wrong. We don’t see the full picture.

All these emotional objections to God based on suffering are understandable, but they’re not arguments. They assume that God could be guilty of something, but a perfect God, by definition, cannot be guilty. So if God exists, then suffering is not a reason to reject Him. It’s simply something we do not yet fully understand.