Without fail, when people highlight suffering and evil in the world as evidence that as good, loving god could not exist, they frame the issue narrow-mindedly and myopically.
The narrowness of perspective is the most common offense. Most people point to suffering and evil that most resonates with them – whether by type of suffering or by anecdotes. It scarcely occurs to them to consider whether a good God should prevent or stay all manners of suffering or all instances.
When atheists argue the problem of evil, a certain prejudice that favors one’s person, perspective or culture is unavoidable. I believe most people who make such references, if they could offer an honest, perhaps anonymous answer, would allow for some suffering as long as it’s not them, anyone they cared for or anyone like them.
Which brings me to myopia. No one who claims that a good God should allow this or that type or instance of suffering or evil offers up any potential consequences for divine intervention. The assumption is that the only possible result would be pure goodness, a better world, or one more suitable to be creation by a benevolent deity.
That notion is an example of Utopian naiveté behind the problem of evil — that if the bad in were to be removed, what remains could only be good. Refuting that implication is one of the central points that I make in The Endeavor of Life, which explains why a good God would not attempt to fashion a perfect world or a perfect life, even if those things were possible (which they are not). If God were to guarantee health and life without our input, life would be vacuous. Left as our endeavor, life is far richer, and much more good becomes possible than bad.