Clearly god's viewpoint, god by definition has no higher authority apart from itself.
Your god by
your definition has no higher authority than itself. That's not clear at all, because it's
your god and only you can tell us the specific properties of it. Unless you're back to believing in the Abrahamic God which has very well defined properties, but you seem adamant that you're not a Christian so you couldn't be.
It's entirely possible that someone else who believed in a different god could have a relationship with them that allowed for disagreement and behaviour that contradicted with their god's implicit wishes or plans.
You personally don't think that suffering is okay, but you're willing to defer to your god who thinks it is. Functionally, your behaviour is then going to be identical to someone who thinks that suffering is okay. Your statements are just a cover to make you feel better about yourself.
The Bible is full of a lot of horse****, but the idea that people should be judged according to their deeds and actions is fundamentally a pretty good one. Ultimately you can think whatever you like, what matters is what you do and how you treat other people. If you say that you think that suffering isn't okay but you behave as if it is because that's what you think your god would want, you're not helping matters at all.
But can Science ever really tell me what is matter, what is energy, what is an atom, what is existence, what is reality, what is life, etc. It's really good at telling me about such subjects, but it can never quite explain to me what they actually are in their purest essence.
Does it need to? Science doesn't claim to explain the purest essence of things, it's a progressive investigation of how things behave. In that pursuit, it's useful for various reasons to come up with conceptual models of what fundamental systems might cause such behaviour but these models are not necessary. Chemistry still worked before we knew what atoms were, physics still worked before we knew about conservation of energy.
There's an assumption on your part that there is such a thing as a "purest essence" of something. That's just a variant on the idea of
Platonic Ideals.
For me, this kind of thing always goes back to the question of where we would ask God to draw the line. What should be removed by God? All abuse? Certain types of abuse? Murder? Accidental death? Accidental injury? Hardship? Discomfort? Anything physically challenging? Anything mentally challenging?
Note - I'm operating under the assumption that you would want God to the address the "child sexual abuse that is enabled under his stewardship".
You don't try and draw the line anywhere. You would ask for justification for where God has chosen to draw the line. God has chosen to create a universe in which these things happen, and so there should be some reasoning behind why that is so. It could be on a case by case basis, but if something is truly for the greater good then you should be able to ask why.
I know that police in reality don't work like this in most places, but an ideal police force should be the same way on a much smaller scale. We accept that police may commit assault, murder or other damaging acts in the name of the greater good of the community, but what balances that is that the public should be allowed to question and examine the justification of those actions and have some input as to whether they continue if they're deemed to be unjustified.
If child rape or whatever is truly for the greater good, then I think it's reasonable to want that pretty clearly explained because on the surface it appears to be horrific.
