Yes, the problem of evil is the elephant in the room for theists and, as you said, why many people reject theism. I continue to struggle with this issue (shouldn't all theists?) So, for theists who believe that God is both all-powerful and beneficent, the question is how to approach this problem? This is a complex problem that I have addressed many times on my website but here I'll offer a few points to consider. Typically mitigating factors are offered like the free-will defense. Of course, this doesn't account for what we call natural evil like hurricanes, disease, and the like. Still, mitigations do offer some defense. Another tact would be to offer reasons or goals.Eugene I wrote: ↑Mon Aug 23, 2021 2:42 pm Just a reminder, as BK said many times, the primary reason that he chose the #2 approach is the problem of evil: he believes that a meta-cognitive intentional and benevolent MAL would not be capable of creating the world (in its own mind) with so much suffering. He has a point, and it just means that the problem of evil is an essential part of the overall equation and should not be neglected. I met too many people (myself included), including dedicated spiritual seekers, who stumbled upon the problem of evil and were opposed to the theistic view mostly because of it. So its not enough just to mention that suffering can be mitigated, this problem deserves serious consideration (and I know that you do give it a serious consideration in your theology).
Typically, there is a sense that an all-powerful, beneficent creator God would not have created a world where the evil we see is present. So, if this world doesn't fit, as a thought experiment, what would a world be like created by an all-powerful, beneficent God? No pain? No suffering? No free-will, No death? No growth? No change? I think it is worth pondering. Would it be something to be desired? This harkens to the idea of heaven or bliss in the religious traditions. If we really think about it, I don't think we would really want to be part of such a world. What would it be like to be in such an existence? Many of the things we appreciate would not be present. Most of the people who visit this discussion like to learn. The act of learning both creates and destroys. The old is destroyed to some extent and the new takes its place. This is true of every creative act. Often this is a painful process but, nonetheless, we seek it out because we see some merit in it. We see this all the time in other venues like athletics, music, art, business, philosophy, etc. We seek out those challenging situations where we are willing to suffer to achieve some goal.
The world we live in, just as it is, offers these opportunities. However, the very same forces and processes that create a world where love, beauty, and meaning are possible, are also responsible for the horrors we see. So the question is, is it worth it to have the presence of evil? What we have learned from science is that we live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life to exist. That very same fine-tuning is responsible for both the good and evil in the universe. Change some parameter slightly and life, as we know it, wouldn't exist. So, if we want a world without evil what would we be will to give up? No growth (it's painful), no learning, no challenge, no risk of failure, no struggle in the creative process? If we think about it, the very things we love and enjoy about life also stem from the same processes that create the ugly and hateful. So, I think it's worth pondering what kind of world we would really like to be in. Would we even want God to create a heavenly, blissful world for us?
Now, we might not want a world without challenge and growth but when we see some of the horrors in life we are still shocked and repulsed. Who isn't repulsed when we see innocent children starving, being abused, or dying of cancer. Or genocide, rape, or torture? Whenever I see such things I also question God's wisdom. How could I not? This is particularly true with theologies where God is distant in a state of perfection, ontologically unsoiled by finite life. The question is, is there a theological ontology where these horrors might be mitigated to some degree? I think theology is about addressing existential issues in the best way it can. Accordingly, I think the aspect monism ontology that I suggest may offer some level of mitigation. It says that the child dying of cancer is literally God living that life and dying of cancer. The pain and suffering are literally God's as that child. God is ontologically getting soiled by finite life and taking an ontological risk. For God to take on life this way, there must be something so worthwhile about finite life that it is worth the cost, pain, and suffering.
I don't think there is any totally satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. Inevitably, it comes down to making a choice between alternatives. Do we live in a meaningless, autonomic world or is there some intentional purposefulness that we may never fully understand in a world where evil is present?