One of the most painful and disturbing realities of our world is the presence of suffering—especially the suffering of innocent children. Stories of abuse, injustice, and cruelty shake our moral foundations and raise deep questions about life, justice, and the existence of a good and powerful God.
In conversations about God, this often becomes the central objection: “If God exists, and if He is good and powerful, then why does He allow such horrific things to happen—especially to children? Since such suffering exists, God must not.”
This emotional and philosophical objection deserves deep reflection. But it also requires intellectual honesty. It is not enough to ask “Why does a good God allow suffering?”—we must also examine the assumptions we bring into that question, and whether we apply the same standards to other areas of knowledge.
Let’s break this down logically.
1. What Kind of God Are You Denying?
When someone says, “I don’t believe in God because He allows children to suffer,” what exactly is being rejected?
It is not the idea of God in general, but a very specific version: a God who, if real, must always prevent suffering, especially the suffering of the innocent. In this line of reasoning, if such suffering exists, then God—as defined—must not.
But this is actually not a disproof of God’s existence. It’s a rejection of a certain definition of God—a God who always acts according to what we, with our limited knowledge, think is right or just.
This is a classic example of what’s called a straw man fallacy: you construct a simplified or distorted version of someone else’s belief, refute that version, and then claim to have refuted the original position.
In this case, the atheist creates a version of God—a divine figure who is expected to eliminate all evil and suffering immediately—and then claims that such a God cannot exist because evil still exists. But that version of God is not what Christianity (or many other philosophical traditions) teaches.
Christianity, for instance, teaches that God is infinitely good, yes—but also infinitely wise, patient, just, merciful, and ultimately beyond our full comprehension. His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8–9). He allows freedom, and mysteriously permits suffering—often using it for a greater good, even if that good is not immediately visible to us.
So before concluding “God does not exist”, we must ask: “Am I denying God, or simply denying my own idea of what I think God should be?”
2. The Double Standard in Reasoning
Let’s assume for a moment that a person rejects God because suffering exists. That same person might then be asked: “How do you explain supernatural phenomena—like Eucharistic miracles, incorrupt saints, or the miracle of the sun at Fatima, witnessed by over 70,000 people in 1917?”
Often, the reply is: “Well, we don’t yet have a full scientific explanation for those events, but maybe someday we will. Human knowledge is still expanding.”
Fair enough. That’s a reasonable approach—to admit that something is currently unexplainable, and leave space for future understanding. But here’s the inconsistency: when it comes to miracles, atheists are willing to suspend judgment and wait for more knowledge. Yet when it comes to suffering and evil, they draw immediate conclusions: “Because there is suffering, God does not exist.”
Why the double standard?
If you are willing to say “We may not understand this now, but with time and study, we might,” with regard to unexplained miracles, then why not take the same approach with suffering? Perhaps what we don’t yet understand is how suffering fits into a larger plan, one that may be beyond our current grasp. Perhaps God’s justice, mercy, and providence are unfolding in ways we don’t yet perceive.
In short: if you’re willing to wait for science to explain the miraculous, are you also willing to wait for deeper spiritual understanding to explain suffering?
3. The Silence of God and the Freedom of Man
Much of the objection stems not just from the existence of suffering, but from the seeming silence of God. “Why doesn’t He intervene?”
But let us ask another question: If God constantly interrupted our choices, prevented every evil, and visibly interfered in every act of injustice, would we truly be free? Would this still be a world of moral growth, real choices, and authentic love—or would it become a divine dictatorship?
The same people who ask why God doesn’t stop evil are often the ones who also say, “Why does God interfere in my personal choices?” or “Why should religion dictate morality?”
You can’t have it both ways. If God were to remove all evil, He would also need to remove our freedom to choose it.
The Christian claim is that God allows evil not because He is powerless or indifferent, but because He has granted us the dignity of real freedom—even though He knows we may misuse it. And when evil does happen, He is not absent: He is present in the victims, in those who suffer, and in those who rise to resist and heal.
4. Miracles Demand an Explanation Too
Returning to the question of miracles: if you reject God because of suffering, you must also reject the miraculous. But many miracles are not private or subjective—they are public, documented, and have no natural explanation even after rigorous scientific examination.
Take for example:
- The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima: Witnessed by over 70,000 people, including skeptics and journalists, the sun reportedly danced and changed colors in the sky for several minutes. Eyewitnesses described the event in similar terms, and it was widely covered in the secular press.
- Eucharistic Miracles: Several Eucharistic hosts around the world have turned into visible flesh and blood, later studied by scientists and pathologists—including atheist doctors—who found that the tissue was human heart muscle, showing signs of trauma, and containing living white blood cells long after separation from the body.
- Incorrupt Saints: The bodies of some saints have remained intact and free from decay for decades or centuries after death, without embalming or preservation, defying natural processes.
These events demand explanation. If we dismiss them by saying “Science will one day explain this,” why not also say, “Perhaps one day I will understand why suffering exists under a good God”?
5. A Humble Invitation
The truth is, both believers and non-believers live in a world that is, at times, confusing, beautiful, painful, mysterious, and awe-inspiring.
If you reject God because of suffering, then at least be honest: you are not rejecting God, but a specific image of God—one who acts exactly as you think He should.
But if there is a God, is it not likely that He is greater than your expectations? That His wisdom may not conform to your limited understanding?
Faith does not require blind acceptance. It invites you to explore, to question, to wrestle with mystery. And most of all, it invites you to be consistent: if you are willing to withhold judgment on miracles because of the limits of science, be equally willing to withhold judgment on suffering because of the limits of human wisdom.
The presence of suffering is real and painful. But it is not, by itself, proof against God. In fact, many who suffer most deeply have found in their pain a deeper experience of God’s presence, love, and strength. Some of the greatest saints and spiritual leaders in history suffered immensely—and testified not to God’s absence, but His nearness.
So let the conversation remain open. Let the search for truth be honest and humble. And let us not rush to deny what we do not yet fully understand.
Vox Divini 