If there’s one thing that everyone agrees on, it’s that life has not treated everyone equally. The vast majority of people today and throughout history have been born into one or more of poverty, war, oppression and hunger. Only a tiny majority have been born into prosperity, freedom and good physical and mental health. This fact creates a tremendous paradox for those who believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing deity who created and controls everything. When we explore the facts, arguments and counter-arguments, we come to an unmistakable conclusion.

If god created the universe and everyone in it, then this deity also created the conditions into which people are born. How does god decide who is born into a good or terrible existence? What are the criteria for this? Are people that god thinks are “better” born into better circumstances? Given that god supposedly created people in the first place, with all their strengths and foibles, how could god simultaneously create “flawed” people, and then condemn them to suffering because they are flawed?

Believers may argue that free will explains much of the world’s suffering. It is true that humans, are to blame for wars, injustices, and cruelty. But what about natural disasters, diseases, or genetic disorders? These are clearly beyond human control, yet they wreak havoc indiscriminately. Couldn’t an omnipotent god create a world where free will exists without all the collateral damage? Even if the suffering is man-made, it does not explain why innocent children and others who were not responsible for the suffering must pay the price for those who have caused the suffering.

Another common argument is that suffering exists to teach us valuable lessons or to foster spiritual growth. Adversity can indeed build resilience and compassion. But what about innocent suffering—like that of infants or animals—where no lesson can be learned? And why is suffering so unevenly distributed? Some people face relentless hardships, while others enjoy life with minor inconveniences. If suffering is meant to help us grow, wouldn’t it make sense for everyone to face challenges on a more equal footing?

Believers also argue that earthly suffering is nothing compared to the eternal bliss awaiting us in the afterlife. But if heaven is the ultimate goal, why bother with suffering in the first place? Couldn’t an all-powerful god create a world where joy and justice exist without needing pain as a prerequisite? If prosperity in this life is seen as a blessing from god, doesn’t that contradict the idea that suffering is somehow beneficial?

Finally, believers argue god’s ways are beyond human comprehension, so what seems unjust to us might serve a higher purpose. This argument is the last refuge of the indefensible. If god created us to be understanding entities, he would have given us the knowledge to understand why he makes hundreds of millions of innocent people needlessly suffer. If we can’t know how god works, we cannot call him “good”.

Note that we would never accept this level of inequality from a human leader. If a CEO ran their company like this—rewarding some employees lavishly while leaving others in misery—we’d demand answers. Why should we hold god to a lower standard? If divine justice and benevolence are real, they should at least be comprehensible on some level.

At the heart of the debate lies the ultimate question: if god exists and is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, how do we reconcile this with suffering and prosperity? Either god isn’t as benevolent as we think, or isn’t as powerful as we believe, or perhaps, just maybe, does not exist at all.

Additional articles by Andrew