Just to backtrack for a moment, we are trying to defend the common atheists' argument that a loving God and suffering cannot coexist. We have determined that you will not be able to build a rational defense if their position is based on their feelings. This is why my poorly constructed diagram goes no further on the on the emotional problem of suffering, you simply cannot, nor should you really attempt to dive any further when their problem is based on feelings. This person has likely experienced real suffering and they need to be shown compassion. It's the intellectual problem of suffering that we're going to dive into.
The two different versions of the argument are important to grasp as you will structure your defense differently. As I mentioned before, you can determine which route to use by simply asking a simple question like this one; "So are you saying that it's impossible for God and the suffering in the world to coexist, or are you merely saying that it's improbable?" Their response to that question will let you know how to proceed.
The Logical Version: (It's impossible)
In their head the argument goes something like this. If God exists then suffering cannot. Since we all know that suffering exists, then it follows that God does not exist. The atheist is claiming that the following two statements are logically inconsistent:
1. An all-loving, all powerful God exists.
2. Suffering exists.
Now the obvious question becomes, why think that these two statements are logically inconsistent? Remember, we're not dealing with feelings or emotions anymore, we're strictly adhering to the rules of logic. There's no explicit contradiction between those two statements, meaning one is not the logical opposite of the other. So if logic doesn't make these two statements an obvious contradiction, then the atheist must be making some hidden assumptions that serve to bring out the contradiction and make it explicit. The two obvious hidden assumptions are:
3. If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.
4. If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.
So then their statement becomes that God can and wants to create a world without suffering, and as they have pointed out in premise 2 suffering exists, so therefore God must not exist. In order for this argument to show a logical inconsistency between statements 1 and 2, both of the hidden assumptions in 3 and 4 have to be necessarily true. But are they?
Premise 3: (If God is all-powerful, He can create any world that He wants.)
Is this necessarily true? It's only a true statement if it's impossible for people to have free will. God's being all powerful doesn't mean that He can bring about the logically impossible, to be clear there's no such thing as the logically impossible. It's a completely inconsistent combination of words. However, if the atheist is insistent that an all-powerful God CAN do the logically impossible, then the conversation is over. At this point they've committed themselves to the stance that God and suffering can both coexist, since He can do the logically impossible, negating your need to go any further.
Since it turns out it's possible for people to have free will, then it follows that premise 3 is not necessarily true. If people can have free will then they have the ability to refuse to do what a loving God desires, which still makes Him a loving God as described in the Bible, but illustrates the evil that does exist in a fallen world. This eliminates one of the assumptions that the atheist needs to be true for their logical argument to succeed. Remember, they need both to be true.
A Moment on Free Will:
This argument is based on the use of Libertarian Free Will. In my post it is strictly used as a possibility, though not a Biblically sound view for a believer. I don't hold a libertarian view of free will, nor do the professors that are teaching the subject. It paints a picture of a reactionary God that's unsure of our choices and then must react accordingly once we chose to do something. I am strictly using this as a method to dismiss the possibility for the atheist and nothing more. As believers we all share one common belief, that our scope is limited. The atheist, unfortunately, believes that they have a better grasp on reality and therefore an unlimited vantage point. With no creator, there is no one that sees things from a divine perspective, therefore putting them at the apex of reasoning. We aren't trying to fully explain God in this argument, we are simply trying to remove the idea that it's impossible for God and suffering to coexist. So plugging in possibilities is an acceptable method of reasoning here, even if it's not in line with sound theology.
Premise 4: (If God is all-loving, He prefers a world without suffering.)
Is this necessarily true? We all know instances where we permit suffering for the greater good. Think about taking your child to the dentist. You allow your child to suffer a little bit (at least this is suffering in their eyes), but it's all for their own good. The atheist might insist that an all-powerful being wouldn't be so limited. That God could bring about greater good directly, without any suffering involved. Again this is where the possibility of free will is involved. Some goods can only be achieved through suffering. Some people consider things like exercise to be a form of suffering to produce a better result. If we induce small amounts of suffering upon ourselves for the greater good, then simply increasing the scale on which you suffer fails to invalidate that good can come from it. If you can point out ways in which they use suffering on a small scale to create a better result, then you can dismiss premise 4. If there is any possibility that suffering on any level can be used for good, then it alone cannot be used to explain away God.
Since the atheist has taken on the burden of proof in this argument, it's clear that it's too heavy for them to carry. Their only way out is to somehow prove that free will doesn't exist in any capacity. Then to fully finish it off, they must explain how it's impossible that a world without suffering is better than a world with suffering.
Suffering is in the Eyes of the Beholder:
At this point you should be done with your argument when using the logical version, but here's a little something extra in case the conversation ventures off into the obscure. Suffering cannot be a valid argument against God simply because suffering is relative. The very things that cause me to suffer might be enjoyable to others. Many of the things that we do in America are considered evil in other parts of the world. Worshiping Christ is one of them. In the US, the death penalty is reserved for the most heinous of criminals. In China you are executed for embezzlement. Suffering and evil are not standard units of measurement, they are personal opinion. Yes, there are things that are almost universally considered evil. The Holocaust is one of them and a very common example. It's certainly not something I wish to marginalize to make a point. However, I must point out that it wasn't considered evil in the eyes of Hitler or his followers. While this doesn't mean that their actions weren't evil, it just serves to point out that evil is still a relative term.
Going Forward:
After centuries of debate, you should know that the logical version of the problem of suffering has been put to bed. Not here in this blog, but rather by Christian philosophers and atheistic scholarship in general. Chances are that you're not going to be having this discussion with a philosopher, so it's still useful in an everyday conversation. Like I've mentioned in previous posts, you are dealing with entry level atheists, so it's still a useful method of debate.
Next we will look at the Evidential Version of the argument. That is to say that it's improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting suffering.