It if often assumed that suffering is more likely on naturalism than theism. However, I think this is mistaken.
For the suffering in the world to even be observed we must presuppose that the conditions are just right. The conditions for observers existing seems obviously much more likelier on theism than naturalism. For on naturalism, chance is the only game in town. On theism, we have an omnipotent being who is the source of life. On naturalism, we somehow got life from non life. On naturalism we somehow got intelligence from mindless matter. On theism, God is the ultimate mind who makes finite minds who’s cognitive faculties are aimed at truth.
Also, the universe even having certain features presupposes that the universe exists. The universe existing is best accounted for if God exists when taking in evidence from modern cosmology and the principle of sufficient reason, principle of causality, and the impossibility of an infinite series of events in reality. On naturalism, the universe just popped into being without a cause or explanation (a brute fact of the matter). Now that’s blind faith.
So NO, I don’t believe suffering is more likely on naturalism than theism. In fact as we can see, suffering is evidence in favor of theism.