I'll grant that you can't talk about why does God allow suffering without addressing does God exist. So let's switch topics within this thread.
Why I have faith in God:
I'm sure you are familiar with Pascal's wager. As a mystic, I have a modified version of it.
Possible outcomes:
1. God exists and has given a "special" revelation (Aquanis) to one particular faith. For the sake of argument, we'll say the Mormons are right (South Park reference)
2. God exists but only reveals himself in "natural" revelation (Aquanis again) but doesn't have a favorite religion
3. God doesn't exist as a diety of any kind, but there some non-sentient source of goodness or virtue or universal conciousness or spiritual reality or objective purpose. In short, maybe not God but something.
4. No God, no somehting. Pure nihilism.
Any other possibilities?
I have not be convinced with certainty that any one of the above realities is true enough to remove all reasonable doubt. I have a lot of doubt actually.
So in lack of clear evidence, I make a existential choice or a leap of faith (which I frequently second guess and re-evaluate). Personally I use two criteria: what makes the most sense out of my experience and then look at what's at stake.
Experience: I have frequent religious experiences, perhaps I have an active temporal lobe. I fully admit that not all these experiences are genuine not easily interpreted. I definitely acknowledge the possibility of religious delusion both in theory and in my own life. But so accept nihilism, I would have to say I'm 100% delusional. That would be pretty difficult to do.
What's at stake;
If 1 is true, the mormons are right and I didn't become Mormon. I've said before that there is a lack of clear evidence in order to make an informed choice. How would I know they are right other than to take their word for it, especially since there are competing revelations? There is the taste and see approach but I've done that with 7 religions and never heard God lay it out for me yet. Did I stop just a few religions short? I can't see being morally responsible for believing something without good evidence.
If 2 is true, this is what I most closely believe, is true I'm good. As a mystic I try to draw closer to God and develop virtue. Now believing alone gets me nowhere, it's all in the actual practice
If 3 is true, then hopefully my path of spirituality and virtue gets me closer to whatever reality there is or in accordance with whatever source of meaning or goodness exists.
If 4 is true, which I think is very unlikely, then it doesn't matter if I'm wrong. My subjective definition of meaning is as good as any other subjective meaning. I think that my path brings me peace and fulfillment so by that sense it's great.
My biggest problem is the haunting feeling that an exclusivist view of Christianity or Islam is right and I'll end up in hell for lack of intellectual belief. This is completely illogical and makes no philosophical or scriptural sense, yet large numbers of people have thus view and I have been told this many times by people worried about my salvation. It's unsettling.