Argument from healing is a new form of evidence developed in a logical and philosophical format, included in the evidences for the existence of God. The sources of healing in nature and within us and the fact that there are many verses in the Qur'an that have the concept of "healing" in his center, exemplifying and explaining the antecedents and results of the argument from healing have been effective in the emergence of this evidence. Possible criticisms of the relevant evidence are more likely to be directed at its first and fourth premises and conclusion. Because these premises play a more critical and more decisive role in this evidence than the others. However, these criticisms are not strong enough to undermine the strength of the argument from healing and deform its structure. Another issue that is the subject of discussion and criticism here is the idea of a God who has love, compassion, mercy, justice, knowledge, will and power, who heals us when we are sick, and the natural evils that arise as a result of almost all kinds of diseases, especially chronic and deadly diseases on earth is the question and problem of how its existence can be explained. Rather, the tensions between the result of this evidence and the problem of natural evil lie behind the criticism of the healing evidence. The main question and problem here is that. On the one hand, there is a will that heals, and on the other, there is chronic and deadly diseases. With such an understanding of God, how can these diseases be considered together and how can they be reconciled or reconciled? How can these two extremes be related and how is it possible to bridge the gap between them? The main purpose of this article is to make some analyzes and criticisms of the argument from healing in the context of the natural evil problem. Revealing philosophically weaknesses and strengths dimensions of the relevant evidence is to make a tidy assessment on this issue in this context.