Ideologies may try to make you confused so you don't know what to believe and you will go along with them and end up acting as if you know they are true. That is why we have to oppose people who won't believe what the evidence points to. They end up unemployable and everything for they need conspiracy theories to sustain their scepticism and conspiracy theories lead to more conspiracy theories. This form of scepticism or skepticism needs the same rancour and opposition.
Critical thinking and knowing how to treat evidence is the only antidote.
The late Christopher Hitchens has made an input here.
Hitchen's Razor explicates that anything that is asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. “Hitchen’s Razor has to do with the need for objective evidence.” This relates to the fact that possibilities do not count. A person saying, “Maybe Jesus did rise from the dead despite the poor evidence” may as well say nothing. Why? Because there is another implicit maybe. It may be unspoken but it is there. The maybe, “Maybe he did not” is present. And there are countless maybes. "Maybe a remarkable series of coincidences and luck made it look like he rose when he in fact did not". So it is good for nothing. An argument that is married to its own counter-arguments is not an argument but hot air. If x is saying something is true then it is up to x to back that up.
Hitchen's Razor would apply if there were evidence for God but the preacher or the Church hasn't supplied any.
It is the same with those who say that God is so good that we cannot imagine it and that evil and suffering however terrible happen because he is so good. That is going too far. There is a difference between that and saying that God may not be very like a person and thus morals do not apply to him so he is more or less neutral or whatever.
When a tyrant abuses his people you don't say, "He must be perfect and have a reason". You say, "Whether deliberately or whatever, he seems unable to think in moral categories."
Ockham's Razor says that if you get a selection of explanations for something then favour the one that leads to the fewest guesses. Don't choose two explanations when one accounts for the situation. So declare that what seems to be totally uncalled for and totally intolerable evil is not part of any good - or even decent never mind good - plan. The Razor assesses evidence and looks for the explanation that fits it the best.
Maybe I should introduce the notion of, “Your big claims, magical claims, miraculously amazing claims come with great responsibility. If you are not applying this principle then grow up and take it and give me reasons why your behaviour is justified.” It's irresponsible to treat terrible realities such as suffering to make religious guesses about. These things show why we should dismiss skeptical theism the doctrine that even if the universe were filled with eternally suffering innocent creatures it would not challenge the love of God.
God not intervening to save an innocent child from grave harm and abuse conflicts with what the ethicist Kant would say, “Everybody must intervene save children.” It makes a rule, “No person should intervene to stop a child from being tortured to death.” The presumption here is that if God is a person then he is subject to the same rule as us. If you disagree fine but you are saying that God then does not have morals in the way we do so how can he be relevant? He cannot. He cannot be inspirational. Only a boaster says they love this great relevant God. It is false humility if you say that you do good because of God and your relationship with him. Your good is from you and not your God or religion or faith.
There is another issue as well. You may say it is different for God for he rules all and evil will be defeated by him. But as your hate for another says more about you than them, so your speaking for another says more about you than them. You agreeing with God not helping makes you a problem for the simple reason that this is too much about you. It says too much about you. Sorry a child's suffering is about the child not your projections and not your faith.
To say that it is different for God to let a child suffer and fall into a fire than for us to do it is just a bare statement. It is covered by Hitchen's Razor. It can be dismissed outright. On the human level, it has to be dismissed for you are exploiting a tragedy to pontificate that God was right to let it happen. You are using it to bolster and protect your pet religious ideology.
Christianity says that once you repent and turn to Jesus, you are forgiven. You become just as if you never sinned. We can forgive without seeing the other that way. It is extreme to imagine that the one pardoned now has become righteous. Christian forgiveness and forgiveness have overlaps but are not the same thing. Hitchen's Razor will dismiss the one who claims to have had their past evil effectively wiped. That a person would go that far and ask others to accept that their sins are more than forgiven but washed makes that person very suspect. It is greed. It is immature for the past is still the past. It accuses others who don't agree of failing to recognise what God has done. If forgiving risks hurting the victim again this will be worse. So while you may say there is no evidence for their claim, you can argue that there are indications for why you should dismiss it.