The Cause of Suffering
God is not just the source of life for everything, He IS life. Therefore when we sin we literally separate ourselves from the source of life; the natural consequence of which is non-life/nonexistence. When sin entered the world through Adam's disobedience our very existence started to unravel, from our genes through to our spiritual condition. Every man has chosen sin at least once in his life, even with the supernatural empowerment from The Lord us Christians sometimes fall during our sanctification, and thus all are morally culpable for Adam's transgression even though we all fell in him. Therefore when death entered the world so to did survival. Additionally, because all mankind bears the image of God, we have real choice. And therein, real consequences.The Existence of Suffering
To our God life is objectively more valuable than death (it's considered an enemy of God 1 Corinthians 15:26) which is why suffering is permitted to exist for a time. It’s also why God permits genetic aberrations to exist for a time; because people who are born with a bodily disability (including your brain) are alive. The person who suffers from the genetic aberration would not have come into existence if their two parents did not meet and copulate to pass on their genes which produced the aberration. Their life is unfathomably more valuable to God than their non-existence or death and therefore suffering is permitted to exist for a time in order that they may live/exist. Therefore, if as a result of sin being introduced into the world (edit: and as a result of real choices with real consequences) it is required to bear suffering for a time in order to live, the only reason said suffering is permitted to exist is because the life of a person is objectively more valuable to God than the death of them or them never coming into existence.Animal Suffering
The very existence of death for mankind means that animals are going to suffer. So their suffering is caused by us and is also permitted to exist by The Lord in order to provide man, who is objectively more valuable to The Lord, with life. Nevertheless animals are still valuable and their suffering is still a tragedy, though it is one that is caused by our sin. After all, vegetarianism is the natural & desirable state of man due to the killing of animals for food only being permitted post-flood in Genesis 9:3 (however there's nothing wrong with eating meat Romans 14:17, 1 Corinthians 8:8, Mark 7:18-19).Secular Objections
If the genesis for your morality is biology, then morality is inherently subjective. As the value ascribed to each individual moral stance or action are different from person to person and you have no authoritative transcendent standard which imparts value to and imposes parameters on specific behaviours, or in general, things that have physical properties (i.e. matter). The lack of a universal authoritative standard by which to evaluate morals therein also means that two people who morally oppose each other would be equally correct in their moral stances and you couldn't say one person's morals are wrong, only that their morals are different. Therefore, if you want to evaluate behaviours from person to person or ascribe any kind of value/hierarchy to morals you need to assume the truth of a moral stance or standard in order to judge or weigh evidence against said behaviours. To judge by a standard is not relative. So assuming human flourishing (empathy, kindness, love) as a standard by which to judge things is to assume without justification a moral truth which doesn't exist within the paradigm.The reason I posted this in the Christian section is because our secular friends lack a morality that's unable to be authoritative over other kinds of morality because they have no ability to claim moral truths due to morality being inherently subjective in their paradigm. So they don't have a problem of evil or suffering because evil doesn't exist in their worldview; as we would be just matter smacking up against matter without any basis for ascribing value authoritatively to any specific thing. It's all arbitrary desire under a Naturalistic/Materialistic paradigm.
Closing thoughts
I'm an Adventist so my understanding of Gehenna isn't Eternal Conscious Torment/Suffering. For that reason the objection (Edit: the objection of Hell) wouldn't affect the position I hold as nonexistence is a natural consequence of sin due to what I mentioned in the first paragraph about sin separating us from God. However my being an Adventist has no bearing upon the view of Anihilationism/Conditional immortality, I just mentioned it because it means I grew up with that view and therefore didn't have the cultural enforcement of Eternal Conscious Torment. I believe the case for Conditional Immortality is far more scripturally sound which is why I believe it.Please feel free to pick apart the arguments or pose objections. Iron sharpens iron (Proverbs 27:17). Also if you want to have a chat or ask some questions feel free to shoot me a message, my inbox is always open.
Hallelujah & God bless you all
Edit: Phrasing & clarity
Edit 2: I also in no way meant to minimise the suffering people experience. Some of the language I used and the way I phrased things may make it seem that way; however, I was speaking in a clinical way in order to describe the perspective/reasoning and not with a view to the degree in which suffering or it's effects are felt.
Last edited: