This chapter explores how the suffering of nonhuman animals should influence one’s understanding of and engagement with God. I contend that the extensive suffering of nonhuman animals necessitates an ambiguous stance toward God. This ambiguity follows from the seemingly inescapable conclusion that God either facilitated the existence of a world in which it was inevitable that countless creatures would undeservedly and disproportionately experience immense suffering or God recklessly risked the well-being of countless creatures by entrusting it to a few free agents. No theodicy successfully exonerates God in the face of these charges. Hence, I advocate for a “dissonant theodicy.” I propose embracing the tension between theodicy and anti-theodicy (refusing to exonerate God) as an act of faith, seeing the world and God in their full ambiguity.