A common way for the problem of evil to be expressed is to say that there is “too much” suffering in the world for there to be a (benevolent) God. But if you think there is too much suffering then you must have a clear idea about what would be an acceptable amount of suffering for a benevolent God to allow. Do you know what that amount is? In fact, it is not even clear how on earth one is to go about answering that question, because it requires you to somehow measure the amount of suffering in the world. But you have to know the answer to this question if you claim that there is “too much” suffering in the world that a benevolent God could rightly allow. If you say there is “too much” then this implies that there is some limit that has been overstepped, a line that has been crossed. If you do not know where that line is or what that limit is, then you cannot claim to know that it has been violated.
It is not clear that suffering can be measured in any way. Measuring the amount of suffering in the world is impossible to do even if we did have some database of all the people alive today who who were the victims of a tragedy. There is the added difficulty of measuring their subjective experience of suffering, which is the crucial part. The issue is not the objective events but the subjective experience, because if those objective events cause no or little suffering, they would be of no concern to us. How would you measure that subjective experience of suffering? And when does it become too much? There is the added difficulty of determining whether the suffering caused good things to come about in their lives or whether there could be some morally justifying reason God could have to allow each individual experience of suffering. There is no reason to think that we could even know whether there is some morally justifying reason, even if we did have this vast database of individual tragedies. Skeptical theism is a type of theodicy that points out how irrational it is to think that, if God does exist, that we would be able to discern his morally justifying reasons for every event of suffering. One reason is that it is very difficult for us to evaluate what could have been. We don’t know if someone would have been worse off or better off without a particular event of suffering. We also don’t know what the world would look like if people generally do get what they want and never suffer. Do people become better or worse when they receive all they’ve ever dreamed of? Would we cultivate compassion and selflessness at all in a world with little to no suffering? Would people be more or less egotistical and selfish without suffering? Would people’s relationships be colder or warmer, more indifferent or more intimate? These are all judgments we are in no position to make. We don’t know if the world would be a better or a worse place without some suffering or with less suffering than there is now. It is also just as difficult to make this judgment in individual cases. You may think that someone’s life is quite horrible as a result of a particular event of suffering. But would it have been even worse without that event? Would they have been a worse or a better person? Consequently, we should not really have confidence in our ability to judge whether a particular event has a morally justifying reason.
So, someone who says “there is too much suffering in the world for a benevolent God to exist” has not realized the unbelievably and impossibly ambitious claim that has been made. They have not expressed a thought so much as an emotion.