God is good but there is still suffering.

One is ONE period. (if ya get spacetime focus the IS in the last sentence in a timeless fashion)

Let me word salad a bit...its Meta pantheistic. More like a Mathematical object which is things themselves, all of them, all the time, all the space, all the stuff. The whole chronology and order of existence in the exact form it can only have. Its a big UNIFIED "rock" !

Being ALL its not any other thing, its anti specific but himself whole, although the "giver", the base, of whatever else, including the illusion of life.

Many God beliefs are empirically confirmable and refutable
December 7, 2015
...
However, to acknowledge there are questions science can't answer - including big questions about value, many philosophical, conceptual questions, etc. - is not to acknowledge that beliefs about the supernatural aren't scientifically refutable or confirmable. Many are. In fact, many god beliefs are empirically refutable, and have even been empirically refuted. How?

Claims about the unobservable are empirically confirmed, disconfirmed, and refuted all the time. Take claims about subatomic particles for example....Over time, considerable evidence for the existence of electrons has been gathered, to the point where their existence is now a fairly well-confirmed empirical hypothesis.

The distant past of this planet is another tract of the unobservable that is nevertheless open to empirical investigation....We can also establish beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, despite the impossibility of our ever observing its past. The evidence is all around us.

So the unobservable - including the distant past and the subatomic - is not off limits to science. The same goes for the supernatural. Supernatural claims may concern unobservables but many are testable, and indeed many have been tested.

Take the claim that God, or some other being, supernaturally answers our petitionary prayers. Many people believe God does miraculous intervene in response to prayer, to heal the sick, say. However, they believe on the basis of anecdotal evidence, which is notoriously unreliable. There have been two huge, multi-million dollar double-blind investigations into whether prayer has any medical benefit for heart patients and both studies found no effect. This was not merely an absence of evidence; it was evidence of absence: observational evidence against the existence of a God that answers such prayers.

...However, as we add more to our god hypothesis, empirical methods can become appropriate. We can empirically rule out, beyond reasonable doubt, a God that answers certain sorts of prayer or a God that created the world less than 10,000 years ago.

Surely we can also rule out a God that is all-powerful, all-knowing and all-evil, and on much the same basis? Surely the world contains far too much love laughter, ice-cream, rainbows and other goods for this to be creation of such a malevolent and powerful being. ...
But if we can reasonably rule out an evil God on the basis of observation, why can't we rule out a good God on the same basis? Surely we can. Surely the world contains far too much suffering for it to be creation of such a benevolent and powerful being.

I want to show some humility here. I don't know why the universe exists....But still, I can quite reasonably rule out two gods: an evil God - which you do sensibly rule out too - and a good God - which you should sensibly rule out too.

In response, some theologians say, 'Oh how unsophisticated of you. That's not what sophisticated believers like my self believe.' They go 'Wittgensteinian' on us, insisting 'God exists' is not used to make a claim at all, let alone one an atheist might contradict or refute. ...

In my view, these sorts of move are usually little more than pompous self-deception accompanied by flights of rhetoric and obscurantism. But let's all at least agree that we can say what God is not: he is not all-powerful and all-evil. And he is not all-powerful and all-good.

From FBM's quoted source:
why can't we rule out a good God on the same basis? Surely we can. Surely the world contains far too much suffering for it to be creation of such a benevolent and powerful being.