HOME   People do good because they are human, not because they are religious! 

Do not give God any credit for the good they do, they did it!


Problem of Good


Believers say evil is only a problem BECAUSE God is good.  So to dismiss belief in God because of evil means you create a worse problem.  You cannot really believe in good.  We need good to be able to identify evil.  They say that the problem of good is strong evidence for the existence of God and rescues the doctrine from those who think believers are only guessing that a loving God can let evil happen.

Is it proof/evidence that we may/must believe in God?


Plantinga's formal proof for God and evil being logically compatible is as follows:


1    God is all-powerful, all-knowing of the past and present and future and totally and flawlessly good.


2    There is evil in the universe.


3    Every essence suffers from transworld depravity - that is has moral defects for it cannot be perfectly good when only God can be perfectly as in unlimitedly good.


4    God creates a world that contains moral good. 


He concludes that a universe made by an all-good God can have evil in it.


The errors are as follows.


He says that 3 fits God's omnipotence. But who cares?  What is more relevant is the question, "Does it fit God's love?"


The assumption is that God and evil can fit together though God detests evil.  They fit for evil is imperfect goodness and it is because goodness exists we are able to condemn evil.




Evil is hostile to good and what is real. To say evil is the negation of good is to call it in some way hostile and intrinsically malevolent.


Saying evil is maladepated good is to say that it can make you love it and yo can make yourself love it. Both things must happen before evil can be done.


Notion that evil is an uncreated power means it is permanent and you can be permantelly evil and it will never be overcome. Tehre are amny eils which there is no point in battling. D

Atheists usually argue that an all good and all powerful God does not exist because there is evil and suffering. The Church contends that this argument makes no sense for to recognise that evil exists is to say that there is a divine standard which is based on good and a side-effect of being good is being opposed to evil. So God and the notion that there is good and there is evil go together. Evil then is an argument for God's existence.


Believers also say that because God is about opposition to evil it follows that to say there is no God because evil exists is to refuse to work with the one thing that can do something about evil.  The implication is that the atheist waters down evil by rejecting God paradoxically because of evil.  The problem of good is an actual assault on the integrity of the atheist and if the atheist is indeed undermining goodness without realising it then he or she is still bad news.

If good proves God and evil is not really a problem then the quantity of evil and its nature is irrelevant. Few can stomach such an extreme view. Most of those who are interested in God want one that is in principle going to help us become happier. You cannot really be happy with God if it means that a universe of hell is compatible with his love.


The believers say that you cannot have evil unless you have good and God is about the good and there is no good without God. That is a head argument but does not do anything for the heart.
That argument that evil is evidence or proof for God is what the problem of good is all about. Its point is that saying evil disproves God or puts God beyond all credibility forces you to face the problem of good: this problem is that good and its existence cannot be accounted for without an all-good God.
The problem of good claims that an atheist cannot account for why he calls say happiness good and suffering bad. God is said to be goodness itself and the solution.

Don't forget that as far as we are concerned, we are not in a position to say what God is like even if what we say is correct. The Church says that God is perfectly rational and creative which is the same as saying he is totally good. So failure to be rational or creative then is evil. God cannot be evil for he is not stupid and you cannot be evil without being somehow stupid.
And who says God is good? Whoever says that God is good is saying they are in a position to judge that God is good and that they know God as well as God does!
If God wants people to do that and religion says he does, is he really good?
If there is a problem of good and logic is good then it follows that there is a problem of good logic. You could say that we need to explain good logic and God is the explanation. But to find God through logic you need to deny that logic necessarily proves God. You need to work out logically that logic can be trusted. You cannot say, "God gave me logic. Logic says God can be trusted. Therefore logic can be trusted." That is an illogical circular argument. It defies logic. You are bringing God in to cover up the fact that you are thinking for yourself without him. What does not defy logic is, "If God gave me logic then I have to decide for myself independently of him if it is correct. I then have to justify my belief in his existence with logic. If logic debunks him then so be it."
The failure of the problem of good logic to show that there must be a good God shows that there can't be a God!
Religion says that if no answer can be found or seems possible for the problem of evil, what matters is how God solves the problem of good.


So it follows we should not even care why God might let evil happen. That is to say that it is possible for there to be no problem of evil but only a problem of good.


So it follows that the problem of evil and the problem of good could be two sides of the same problem.
But in reality believers are saying evil is not a problem at all!
To be God, God has to be the origin and essence of all good. So believers make out that if there is no God there is no good. Good exists therefore there must be a God. Not just any version of God will do - he must be an all-good and sovereign and infinite God. A finite God is limited in goodness. So if goodness proves God, it proves his infinite and perfect and unlimited goodness.

But we have an imperfect and limited understanding of good. Good is limited. There is only so much you can do for others and yourself. It is enough. We don't need God's brand of endless goodness. Needing tea doesn't mean you want or need an infinite ocean of tea to exist.
The doctrine of God then is about God and not about what we need. God's concern for our needs is not paramount. God is.
Religion says that is only fair. But even if it is fair then what about us? God mattering not us would be a necessary evil. We can't be asked to be happy about that.
The believer in God says the atheist will have a problem of good. That is nonsense. The atheist recognises that if there is no God and no anything then it is good that there is nobody to suffer. Good is a default.
It is the believer who creates the problem of good and creates a problem where there is none. Belief in God is intrinsically bigoted because nobody has the right to present good actions, good health and the goodness of life as a problem. The translation of the belief is: Don't appreciate anything unless you believe in God. That is malicious.


The argument from believers is that there must be a God for if there is not then there is no such thing as evil and there is no such thing as anything immoral.  The argument even if it worked would still not be an argument for God. Why? Because it forces you and blackmails you to believe. If God has to make do with forced and harassed disciples then he is not a God. The Christian doctrine that God is about us having a relationship with him and him with us is wrecked to pieces. All this God can give is bullying commands.  We will not enjoy keeping them because of the spirit in which they are given.  Atheists have no choice but to reject this evil morality.  The atheist not only has no problem of good but the atheist alone is the one that holds the key to morality.
God has no freedom to sin and yet he is perfect so how can he have the right to make us as free agents who can sin? If he can do without the ability to sin why can't we?
The notion that God gives us free will is about trying to say that God loves us so much that he respects our free choice. But to respect our free choice is not the same as respecting us. You are not respecting a person if you freely let them freely do something very dangerous and bad.

There are two types of arguments against an all-good God being able to let evil happen.
The logical arguments argue that evil and God contradict each other. We have already delivered some of them.
The evidentialist arguments say that even if God does exist, we cannot be expected to say he does for evil makes his existence unlikely. For an evidentialist, God might exist in theory but its hardly likely he does for certain kinds of evil tell against a loving creator. The evidentialist says that though God might allow evil for the sake of a worthwhile good, there are cases that cannot be worth it. What if you cannot prove they are not worth it? Many evidentialists say if you are entitled to suppose they are not worth it, it is enough. It doesn't mean you are sure, only that you cannot be blamed for supposing they are not worth it. A really good person will suppose that assuming there is no way to be sure.
Believers in God have only one answer for the evidentialist. It is that he or she overlooks that evil itself is really good in the wrong place and time. But that amounts to saying that if you come into existence and start an eternal life of endless pain that it is worthwhile. Looking for the good in everything to partly excuse or fully excuse the bad is evil in itself. It is callous to say that there is a problem of good if we have a hypothetical universe in which very little evil happens and there is an equal problem in a hypothetical universe with countless zillions of people who suffer to the extreme from the first moment of their existence and for all eternity. That is just disregarding the suffering to look at the good.
The problem of good argument rejects all evidentialist arguments against God. That is evil itself for if you see evil as terrible you will see it as evidence for no God. You have to see it as evidence in itself. It says something and you have to listen. If you still believe in God then that should be because there is also evidence that God exists and that is stronger and offers hope of triumph over evil. If you are looking for such evidence you will be disappointed. Christian defenders of the faith typically give you arguments based on ifs and maybes and they exaggerate their force. They really give you just opinions masquerading as evidence.
The problem of good argument sees the good in evil and refuses to see the bad correctly. It is watered down.
The problem of good does not and cannot account for there being evil that does no good but only bad. It is not even relevant. Trying to use it to excuse what is possibly terrible neglect by God is itself evil.
The problem of good presupposes that God in himself is pure goodness. The creation is clearly not as good as God so God is seen as the one who makes all things out of nothing so the creation is separate from him. That is to say, he did not turn himself into the creation. That would be making not creating.
Creating is to make something without using anything to make it from.
If creation is absurd then the problem of good fails. It is total nonsense.
All agree that something cannot come from nothing.
Believers agree so they say it can if God commands it to. But God has nothing to act on. He does not need to create so he cannot have the power to create. God being self-sufficient does not need this power. So God simply wants creation to happen and does nothing to make it happen. And it happens. That is pure magic. If something can come from nothing without being worked on by God then it can come if there is no God at all. What has commanding to do with creating? Commanding is not making or causing. Commanding something to exist is not creating. If something appears that is down to luck not to God. Think of it this way, to cause means to change. God cannot change nothing into something for there isn't anything there to change. Theologians do admit they do not mean what we normally mean by saying God caused the universe. But that is playing with words.
The doctrine of creation is full of lies and stupidity and thus it cannot be a basis for the problem of good for it is not a good doctrine.



The notion that God tolerates evil but does not propose it or love it in any way seems decent enough. But is it? It makes God more worried about having good intentions than anything else. It makes him self-righteous. Why? It is possible to care only about good intentions than actually being good.  It is about you feeling you are doing good and that is all you care about.  Intentions are not an end in themselves but are for an end: goodness.


Is that judgemental?  Maybe God's intentions are honourable?  Probably not for evil and suffering are too extreme.  The fact remains that nobody has the right to tell us to honour or pray to such a God for it is our right to judge his intentions as bad just because we decide to.  God then cannot have a relationship with you for that question of his integrity cannot go away.  God cannot be God to you.

Spinoza wrote that we only judge things to be good because we want those things (page 204, The Book of Atheist Spirituality). So because we want comfort for ourselves in the face of suffering and because we want to believe that God supports us we warm ourselves to the suffering of nearly all creation. It does not repel us the way it should.
Believers say that theories about why God allows evil to happen may help you adore him but only if they develop your perception of good and your attraction to it. They tell us, "It has to be about perception not theory. It would not be right to accept the problem of evil being solved theoretically when it should be solved perceptually." Perceptual is more holistic. Theory leaves the heart out. Perception includes it. Suppose you can see the good that results from evil and that it is justified. It is explained. You perceive why God let the evil take place so now you can create a theory but you don't really need to. What believers really mean is they want us to look at evil and no matter how bad it is and if the whole universe turns into a hellhole they want us to twist our minds and see this as somehow justifiable and good as far as God let it happen. It is not about perception of reality but perception as in seeing what we want to see.
It is strange that God urges you to see how evil leads to good and how evil has a good side and believe in him because of this but does not let you try to test him! It is too strange to contemplate! It is man that does not want you testing in case you find out there is no God! To cause something to be untestable is bad for it is too risky in many ways. To blame God for engineering spiritual affairs to put them outside the range of testing is blasphemy.
Christianity says that many things are good and all things have good in them. Moral good is a different kind of good.
Some say good will exist whether there is a God or not. Some also say that moral good will exist whether there is a God or not.
Which one is the most important - good or moral good?
If it is good then God is evil because we suffer and should have only good things. This shows that there is something terribly wrong with the problem of good argument. It would be more than just wrong intellectually but as far as the heart is concerned it would be a sign of religious hardness towards those who suffer.
Moral good can only matter if good matters more. So good matters more than free will to do evil. If love is important good is more important for what use is love if it is not good?
If, this is only an if, the two matter equally then what?
We have a God who could have put us in a universe with no risk of evil or harm. He is not much of a God for when he had a choice he should have chosen the choice that is painless for us.
The believers say we could have had a universe where evil is not the problem at all but good is. So if there is no evil there is a problem of good. If there is evil, evil is not a problem - the problem of good is the problem. So either way evil is not a problem. But does such an argument make sense? No - a universe with a painful non-problem is not as good as a universe with a painless non-problem of the same kind.
The good person does good automatically and does not need to reason that there is a God in order to be good. If you need to believe in God to be good then you are not a good person and are manipulating yourself to act good.
Belief in God does not solve the problem of good. It makes the problem worse and corrupts our intentions.
Suppose good and evil would exist whether God exists or not. Suppose we exist. If we have free will then it is not about loving God or otherwise but about good and evil. God has no right to use our free will as an excuse for his letting evil happen for good and evil are not about him but independent of him. The believers themselves do not understand good and evil properly when they make excuses for him. That makes them dangerous and often has in the past as exemplified by religious wars.
Think this. Is God's nature good by some standard or good because he says so? If it is by some standard then good matters and God doesn't. And to say he makes things good just by decree is to say that you would be willing to torture a baby to death for fun if he demanded it and just because he asked.
Believers may say that God would never ask you to torture the baby for he is the kind of God that would not do that. Even if you boast that he would never ask the point is you would if he did. What about the hypothetical issue? Surely if hypothetically he could, you have to be hypothetically willing to do it? It may be hypothetical but it still says something about you. It still speaks of the person you would be if it were commanded by God.
The delusion that God and goodness are the same and that good is a person and that person is God is far worse than thinking you are going to sprout wings and fly over the moon or have done so. It is even more detached from reality than thinking you are made of cheese and not flesh. In psychiatry, delusions that endanger you and/or make you dangerous are illnesses.
If God is not necessary for there to be good, then good is to be served above God. If God commands evil then ignore him.

If God is goodness and goodness is this person who is God then surely any form of goodness is a religious experience or perhaps more accurately a spiritual experience? That idea denies that there is any such thing as an atheist for there is good in everything we do. If evil is the abuse of good it follows that evil in a sense is good. If there is no goodness without God because goodness has to be a person to be real then it follows that the argument, "God may exist because we experience his presence" is not an argument for belief. It is an argument for experience meaning that the unbeliever just does not realise she is in union with God and serving God.
Some atheists say we should not talk about the problem of evil but the problem of God. They say that if you talk about evil as a problem you have already ignored it as a possible disproof of God. They say that if you talk about the problem of evil you are saying God is real and evil must be reconciled with God's existence even if we don't know how. These atheists are not saying suffering cannot challenge the existence of God. Their concern is to protect the fact that it does.
It would be vile to ignore the suffering of a baby to say there is a God. It would mean that in some way you do not care. Those atheists say you must take evil seriously and not just as a problem and what you should have the problem with is not evil but God. If it is true that evil cannot fit the existence of God, then belief in God will be based on denial and a refusal to see that evil is so bad it is intolerable by God. A God who is good and who tolerates it cannot exist. He would be an oxymoron. If you believe in free will, the person who is in denial is still as much to blame as a person who is dishonest. Denial cannot exist without dishonesty.

A assumption in the face of great evil can be presumptuous and cold. If God tolerates evil in order that we might overcome it and become virtuous, then it is wrong to simply assume there is a problem of evil. You must see the good first. We are talking about how failing to do so insults God. This is about God not suffering people.
You must approach the issue from "There is a problem of good if there is no God" kind of angle. That is the main problem. It must lead you to recognise an inferior problem - the problem of evil. To worry primarily about the problem of evil would be evil in the sense that it is focusing on evil not good. It becomes about explaining the evil and not the good. That would violate the principle that respect for good matters more than fighting evil though that matters as well.
If God comes first by definition, if we should love only him or love him most, we need the problem of good to be more important than the problem of evil. It matters more that we look for answers to the problem of good than the problem of evil. This leads to a callous disregard for the suffering of the innocent. It would be more correct to say that God alone matters so the problem of good alone matters not the problem of evil. The problem of evil would not matter at all.
That is nothing more than an attempt to condone the evil. If Thomas sees a little girl being beaten by her mother, he does not try to condone the evil unless he has overwhelming proof that the mother is a good person. So the problem becomes how to explain her goodness not her evil. Anything else would be hypocritically going down to her level. We do not want to be like pious do-gooders who love God for doing their vicious dirty work - who see his deeds and neglect as evil but still condone and praise it.
How does it affect people if we look at the good in the evil they endure more than the evil itself? It will tear them apart. No woman whose husband breaks her heart wants to hear about how good the pain is and that at least now she is rid of him and can learn to cope on her own etc etc. Those who look at the advantages of what terrible things happen to others are training themselves in insensitivity and callousness.
People cannot come first instead of God. God by definition is the all that matters. Does the notion that there is a problem and that it is about us not God make sense? No - the problem of good is about God not people. If people matter more even than God then what? Some say our focus will be need to be the problem of good. But if people come first then the problem of evil comes first for it is people that suffer. They are trying to avoid us believing in an all-good God while not taking evil that seriously. If the problem of evil is a bigger problem than the problem of good then we are believing in God's love despite the evidence and have some coldness in our hearts. We have our priorities wrong. 
If you believe in God you end up with a problem, the problem of evil. If you focus on the problem of good only and use that to justify belief in God you callously ignore the problem of evil. You do not really respect God if God and the problem of evil are part of the same deal.
If we assume the problem of good is solved by saying there is a God we must admit that there is a problem of evil but hold that this problem does not refute God. It would follow that we should not even look at the problem of evil and rest content in solving the problem of good. That would be vicious for we should try to get some understanding as to why people might suffer. It is too serious to be ignored.
Evil by definition is what should not be. So the idea of a God who makes things fall short of the goodness they could have or who makes evil for a good reason is incoherent and insensitive and blind to the horror of the suffering of others. The Christian will never suffer as much as other creatures in the world do and therefore has no right to say this evil should be allowed to happen by God. Experience it all first - which is impossible - and then decide. There is something vulgar about a person who has a healthy life saying God sent Angie some cancer for a noble reason! Nobody can tell anybody they know how they feel or that they should feel it is agreeable with the existence of a loving God. Yet religion teaches people to pretend that they know that all the evil in the world can be ultimately justified and or condoned.
Belief in God is evil for it requires us to get the scales to tip in favour of the doctrine that if we think God does not exist then there is a problem of good which can only be solved by believing in God. They do not. The problem of good fails to convince us God must exist. If the scales tip the other way, which they do, then believers are believing in God because of the problem of evil which is not only irrational but is refusing to properly acknowledge that evil is vile. You don't consider a man with whom there is a serious problem of evil to be a good man because of the evil. If you do, then what you are doing is condoning the evil and blessing it. 
If you believe in God because of the problem of good and you acknowledge the problem of evil you are still being bad. You are in effect believing in God not because of goodness but because of evil.
God is not likely to be really good. A good God probably does not exist.
Before religionists start thinking there is a problem of good they should go and learn what is good, what is not and what is neither. This they cannot do for they disagree among themselves about what is good and what is morally good. And you have different religions all arguing with each other.
Believers regard God's rules as part of him, as being of his nature and essence. For example, it is true to say the Catholic God is the wrongness of contraception. The Protestant God is the rightness of contraception. The Antinomian Christian God doesn't care if you use contraception or not. The Christian God in general is the moral perfection of Jesus Christ as judged by his followers. The Hindu God Krishna is amoral and about fun so these form the character of this God. God's goodness or whatever is his character and his character makes him God which is why in essentials the Hindu and Christian and Islamist God is really three different Gods,
Believers should be more interested in discerning good than God because God can't be discerned until good is discerned first. The emphasis put on God even to the point of ordering people to love God with all their being as Jesus did is simply fanatical and evil.

Believers insult good by describing it as a problem if there is no God. They don't know what good is when they can say that. They don't know that good will be whether there is a God or not, whether there is anything or not. The evil person has a warped sense of good that blinds him or her to what good is. That is what makes her or him bad. The God belief is making believers evil.
The argument that design and goodness in the universe and in people shows there must be a God to make the good is to be rejected for it insults good in the way we have shown. Christians sometimes say that God made all things and designed all things without intending it to be an argument for God. But argument or not, they are saying wicked things. If he did not intend the marks he left to be evidence they are still marks of goodness and show something of him.


The doctrine that evil is just a falling short of good and is itself good of a lesser kind says there is a problem of good not evil. That is admitting that one will adore God even if the whole universe is an everlasting Hell. No evil is great enough to disprove God. It is saying you don't care how much evil there is. Nothing is going to stop you taking God's side. That approach is inhuman - if you have fellow-feeling you will not go that far. You will not espouse a principle that lets you go that far if you choose.


Believers are manipulated by their leaders for on the whole, believers believe there is a lot of evil but they agree nobody should believe in God if there is too much. They are not told that the religion does not care how much evil there is.


If it is true that evil is just a form of good and God is goodness, then it follows that instead of disproving God or making him unlikely to exist, evil proves God's existence.


Believers say that God is beauty and if we see beauty in all things we will see God. If we try to see beauty in all evil we will soon be devoid of all compassion and sense! What is beautiful about the death agony of a baby? If the universe were hell, where would the beauty be then?


An atheist might see evil as good in the wrong place just like a believer in God does. But at least the atheist is not at risk of seeing it as more good than the believer is. The believer sees God in it.

The notion that evil is not real but is merely good that is not good enough leads to some interesting things. What if a person is a cynical malicious gossip? His friends may say, "You tell it as you see it!" That is saying, "You are to be praised for being a gossip." It does not make their condemnations of cynicism and gossip sincere. If you love the person you will be forced to praise what good they do even if it is the good of evil. That you condemn proves that you do not. To view a person as dangerous and harmful makes you hate and that is what hate is all about.


The person who forgives will reason, "That person hurts me for he sees me as a danger. He hates his perception of me and not me and so I forgive. I understand and understanding is necessary for forgiving."


In fact a person who has warped perception is worse than the person who sees you as you are and hates you for it. That person is more dangerous. It is more rational to forgive the person who hates you because he knows you. Whether it is the perception of you that is hated or you you will still bleed from the knife in your back. It follows then that Christian goodness is not as good as it pretends to be. So why put much value on the problem of good?
If good is a default then God does not control good or create it. He just has to keep in line with it and implement it. Suppose evil is the wrong kind of good. If evil happens then evil is the side-effect of good. Good exists whether God does or not. Thus bad side-effects would be expected but only if there is no God to keep things on the straight and narrow. If goodness is independent of God, and God has to live up to it then he cannot tolerate evil or let it happen. The side-effect thing does not apply if God has to line up to goodness and it is the supreme and independent standard.


To say evil is collateral to God's plan is to deny it is really evil for real evil is useless in itself and intolerable for it is not only useless but pro-harm.
Even if there were no God and no universe and nothing at all there would still be some good. For example, there would be no suffering. God can't invent good. He has to subject himself to it. Hurting a baby would be evil whether there is a God or not and shame on religion for trying to say different. They imply it would be fine to hurt the baby if there were no God. It is terrible how they can suggest that and then say that God is right to let babies suffer terribly for he has a reason unknown to us.
Believers in God risk worshipping a God who is evil but whose evil is condoned. God seeing himself as good is one thing but we are too limited and imperfect to see it the way he sees it. Thus you could adore a perfect God but because your love for good is blurred your perception of God becomes blurred too. Thus you adore the source of moral perfection through the lens of your bad and faulty moral perception meaning you adore what you think good is or want it be rather than what it is. You would have excessive esteem for your moral compass and perception when you would turn it into God or worship a God who represents it.
Most of us - if not all - understand evil inadequately. We say we know it when we see it but we don't really really know it. Given that human nature is so limited in discernment and our understanding is largely clouded, it should be taken as certain that believers are in fact condoning evil even if God really is good. They tend to condone especially when the worst things seem to happen to other people.
If you are suffering and see your loved ones suffering, you could get so desperate that you are willing to condone God's role in this as long as good things may come at the end. People have condoned what earthly tyrants did to them for the same reason. It is all about hope.
Is belief in God worth it if it causes vulnerable desperate people to go to that extreme? They discard principle for the sake of hope.
It is not worth it. You can have hope without God. We know by experience that things usually improve given time. You can have hope if you think God is not all-powerful
Human nature likes inventing its own good. It may be close to the real thing but it is not the real thing. Even if it is a perfect match for real good, it is not mean we are really attuned to what good is. It could be that we don't care about good as good but only care about good for it happens to match what we want good to be. Even if there is merit in the theology of the problem of good, even if it is correct, it does not follow that any human person cares. We could be seeing good in nature not God and imagining that it is God. That way we find God's presence in what suits us. In other words, we create an idol. It does not matter if God exists or not, it is still idolatry.

Good exists whether God exists or not. The problem of good only arises for those who want us to believe in God. They can't be happy for a sick baby getting better unless God is involved. Their problem of good is a way of trying to make you think there is no good without God. Whoever thinks that does not understand good. The believers invent a good of their own. While they invent it, they implicitly insult all the people on earth upon whom God supposedly lets suffering befall. They invent good and then say they will endorse that good and worship it as the heart of God even if the whole universe is packed with people who never knew a second's peace.
The Main Points
Evil. It is bad by itself and bad for us.
Consider how evil impacts us.
Consider evil as evil in itself.
Consider how evil impacts the innocent person who suffers.
The priority is helping the person’s suffering not God. You should prioritise helping the person instead of caring if evil is evil in itself.

A baby suffers terribly and nobody can imagine what it is like for that baby.
The believer says God is with the baby and lovingly taking care of that baby.
That is a theory or assumption.
What if you can do nothing to help? You are saying God is there to help when you or anybody else cannot and that he does help. You are saying that as long as people do their best, they need not worry for God will do what they simply cannot do. Is God giving that child medicine or something? No. So how dare you say the child is being helped!
And being unable to help does not mean you must stop totally being against the suffering of the child. Belief in God requires you to just leave the child to God. That is extremism in principle. There is a lot to worry about if a person refuses to deplore the suffering of a child just because nothing more can be done. That is turning the empathy off. An atheist has no right to do that and the believer has no right either. Belief in God demands it. Atheism does not demand it.
The suffering and aloneness of the child is a bare fact.
It is not a matter for theory.
Thus turning it into a theory about God's caring action is terrible.
That is using the child to derive your faith and the faith of others and to sustain it.
The child is used as a means to an end. The suffering of the child is used as a means to an end too.
Evidence is better than theory but even it is always not enough. You need proof when it is a child's suffering we are talking about.
Because the suffering has to be taken seriously and you must not risk suggesting the child is being help if he is not being helped. You cannot dismiss how it looks. Empathy needs to be allowed to flow unhindered.

Because the reason is that man is biased.
Because the reason is that man mistakes his own ideas for God's and even God, as far as man is concerned, is made up of human ideas.
Because the reason is that if man is right about God it does not follow that man cares about being right.
Because the reason is that if man is right about God it could be down to luck.
Because the reason is that faith is not going to help the baby but it may help those who are left behind and it may help you.
Because the reason is that it is not about your faith or anybody else's - there is a baby!
How does the so-called problem of good come into all this?
Is to try to see the good in the suffering, to make out that it is more good than bad for the child? Yes - if evil is misplaced good then it is more good than bad.
Is it more important for good to be good or to be recognisable as good?
To be good. That means you must not let yourself be horrified by what you see.
Conclusion: Atheism is majestic in principle and should be based on the utmost compassion. It is better to promote atheism even if people will not live up to it. If they don't that is not atheism's fault but theirs. Faith in God is disgusting in what it says about suffering that is untreatable.
The Cambridge Companion to Atheism, Edited by Michael Martin, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2007