Each time I question why God would allow suffering, I am presented with the same retort. That first, if God intervened it would defeat the purpose of free-will. And that second, it would make there be no need for faith.
How is this an argument in defense of God’s position? Is that all that is keeping him from intervening? Think of the most horrible suffering imaginable. Would you agree that the prevention of that type of suffering warrants at least a momentary suspension of will? Murderers wouldn’t, but as a society we can agree that these are not the opinions to listen to.
To argue that all actions are subjective, therefore we must even take into account what a psychopath deems as ethical, is in my opinion a faulty conclusion.
You wouldn’t consult an engineer on how best to perform a surgery; just as you would not consult someone who doesn’t value human happiness when deciding which actions deserve to be thwarted.
Next, why is God so set on people believing in his presence when clearly a lack of evidence is presently available? If the question of whether there is evidence or not for an omnipotent, omnipresent being even arises, then this is a failure on God’s part. Is not popping down to earth occasionally in order to make his presence known, worth saving the millions upon millions of people that have rejected him due to this lack of evidence?