Seems to me that introducing the idea of god into this world just brings out all sorts of contradictions.
If this world is godless, the horrors that exist in it don't really need an explanation. Things are the way they are, for better or worse. It's not just human nature that causes suffering, it's a billion years of the evolved predator/prey cycle, it's the array of disgusting and disfiguring diseases that plague humanity and other animals, it's birth defects, it's accidents, it's when the environment suddenly becomes violent and murderous to humans and other animals either with like a tornado or one of the five major worldwide extinction events that each killed much of the life on the planet, plus the dozens of minor extinction events. All we can do is try our best to work around these things.
If this world has a god in it, particularly one that is considered to be benevolent and exceedingly or even infinitely powerful, all of these issues relating to the problem of evil become relevant. Why would a god do this to creation? Why would god do this to itself? I've not seen answers that fully satisfy the questions, from my point of view.
Some people say that god is perfect but that something went wrong in the world. God is apparently having trouble with it. This is basically an admission that their god has limits, can fail at foresight or design, and then cannot instantly resolve things even when it's aware of a problem. Of course, humans are given center stage in the narrative, in the sense that we caused it and god must work through us to fix it, even though suffering has existed far longer than humans have been around.
Some people believe in multiple gods, and none of them are all-powerful and many of them are not infinitely benevolent.
Some people believed in a detached god, or a god that is so vague and impersonal, like undirected consciousness, that to say that god can do anything or is aware of what's going on, merely personalizes that which isn't personal.
Some people argue that god wants to experience almost everything, for better or worse, to create a contrast for the good. But could we call the existing suffering constructive?
One of the saddest things, I think, is that humans even fail when we succeed. That's the most pessimistic aspect I see to this. In the last few centuries we've collectively done a rather good job at prolonging our lives against famine and war and starvation, and in response we now have overpopulation as our reward, so we're tearing apart the environment. Or, for example, we've invented these medicines to cure some diseases. Like antibacterial medicine against bacteria. But increasingly, super-bacteria are developing that are resistant to our medicines, and most of our health advancements come from inflicting test suffering on animals. By helping the weakest among us live (and by extension eventually mate), we might be keeping a lot of problems in our collective gene pool that would have naturally minimized themselves in less civilized times, and if that's the case what if it keeps collecting and collecting? Most or all of our advancements have a cost, so over the long term, it's hard to say how well we're really doing in response to nature, or if there is even a way to do decently, and we haven't even dealt with a huge catastrophe like an asteroid impact or a gamma ray blast or anything like this that could wipe out our advancements and maybe our species. It just goes back to basically doing our best and trying to keep this going for as long as we can.