In the debate between William Craig and Daniel Came, Craig points out a point in regards to skeptical theism. Craig reminds us that on suffering, when an atheist uses this as an argument, they are assuming a burden of proof. It’s often posited that the theist must explain exactly how God could have a morally justified reason for allowing the suffering. But it is the atheist that is presenting a proposition. The proposition that God does not have moral justification for allowing suffering or that at least it doesn’t appear that he does. All that is needed to circumvent the charge that suffering is incompatible or less likely if there is a God is the mere possibility of God having a morally sufficient reason. The theist has no obligation to explain exactly how God has a morally sufficient reason. It is the burden of the atheist to show that suffering is incompatible with the existence of God or suffering often referred to as gratuitous is in fact gratuitous, because that is a claim/proposition being made by the atheist. My question is this: Is Craig justified in throwing the burden of proof back to the atheist and if he is unjustified in doing so, in what way is he unjustified?

Read another response about Religion