Obviously, [suffering is] not a definitive proof that [God] exists, but it’s a hint that he does, in that when a skeptic claims there’s too much ‘evil’ or ‘suffering’ in the world for God to exist, he’s in that moment claiming a category called ‘suffering’ or ‘evil.’ If the skeptic’s worldview were true and there were no absolute, transcendent person who gave us a moral law or a sense of right and wrong, then that category of ‘suffering’ or ‘evil’ wouldn’t exist. To say the world is filled with suffering is to compare it to something one thinks is the right way. But where would we get this better way of being idea to compare life to if God didn’t exist? It couldn’t come from nature, because if our brains were programmed simply through evolutionary development, we would never conclude that killing weak babies was wrong or that oppressing weaker people groups is wrong. Those things would be the most natural events to us. But for some reason, because of something beyond nature, we come to different conclusions. The fact that shootings and cancer and genocides bother us at all points to a moral Law Giver who transcends our natural order. — Mark Clark (from The Problem of God: An Interview with Mark Clark)