Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig about the problem of suffering and pain

Christian philosophers have developed several defenses against the so-called problem of suffering and evil, namely the problem of the existence of extreme suffering and pain in a world created by a good, loving God. Is the existence of suffering and pain compatible with a God who is reputed to be all-loving and all-good? This is the problem.

Atheists have pressed this point in order to show that such God doesn't exist. However, as consequence of the works of analytical philosophers of religion like Alvin Plantinga, it is currently accepted by mainstream philosophy of religion that there is NOT contradiction between the existence of God and the existence of suffering and pain. In other words, the existence of pain is logically compatible with the existence of all-loving and all-good God.

A specialist in the problem of suffering and pain, atheist philosopher William L. Rowe comments:

Some philosophers have contended that the existence of evil is logically inconsistent with the existence of the theistic God. No one, I think, has succeeded in establishing such an extravagant claim. Indeed, granted incompatibilism, there is a fairly compelling argument for the view that the existence of evil is logically consistent with the existence of the theistic God." ("The Problem of Evil and Some Varieties of Atheism’, American Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1979). Emphasis in blue added)

Currently, the debate about the problem of pain and suffering is posed as a probabilistic argument against the existence of God. That is, it is "probable" that God exists given the existence of so many cases of suffering and pain in the world? This is the current debate among philosophers. (For reasons explained here, I think the probabilistic version of the problem of pain and suffering doesn't affect theism).

In any case, I suggest watching these videos by Alvin Plantinga and William Lane Craig about the problem of suffering and evil:

I find Craig's distinction between the "intellectual problem" of pain and the "emotional problem" of pain very useful, because many people seem to agree or disagree with factual positions (political, religious, philosophical, etc.) based only or mainly in their emotions.

If they find some ideas emotionally unpalatable or disturbing, then they conclude that it is unlikely or false. (This emotionality underlies the sympathies of many people to New Age revisionistic versions of Jesus, which I've called "feels good" spirituality).

Obviously such "emotional criterion" of truth is extremely subjective, unreliable and misleading. What makes you "feel good", can make other people to "feel bad". For examples, bullying makes "feel good" the bully and his followers, but it makes "feel bad" their victims. Going to Church makes "feel good" Christian believers, but makes "feel bad" atheists. The idea of reincarnation is unpalatable to many people, but makes to "feel good" people who wish "another chance", etc. (You can think about your own examples). You cannot settle these factual matters only or mainly appealing to your subjective's emotions and how such ideas, if true, "make you feel".

In the case of the problem of pain, as Craig notes, emotionally the problem is shocking (specially if we're the victims of such pain and suffering). But intellectually, it is hard to see why it is a problem, given that the existence of pain and suffering are logically compatible with God's existence, and the reasons for God permitting such pain could, in many cases, to be beyond our understanding. (Why exactly should God give us a detailed account or explanation of why He allows pain? Or why should us to know or understand, in exact detail, why God allows such things? Perhaps the reasons for God allowing such things have to do with spiritual reasons that we cannot understand yet given our limited perspective or finite intelligence. The point is that our unability for knowing or understanding the reasons of why God allows pain and suffering in the world is a fact about ourselves, about our cognitive and spiritual limitations, not about the existence of God himself).