A ha, you are correct the maths problem analogy is not a perfect match. Another analogy might be to say that children are forbidden certain things by their parents. If there are reports of serial killer in the neighbourhood, for example, a child may not be allowed out, even to the garden, to play. On a sunny day this may cause suffering to the child who is not able to understand the explanation even if offered. There are problems with this analogy too of course. People don't like to be compared with children. They may say that not being allowed out to pay is not really "suffering", or that the child could understand the situation if it was explained in their terms. You could argue all those points either way, but the point is that we can conceive of situations in human interactions where people with greater power (such as parents) impose real suffering on others for reasons they can't understand, but that with greater perspective is for the good.
I am not saying this is definitely the situation with God. Or that I know what the hidden reasons may be. All I am saying is, given that we may not know everything about the situation, and given the possibility that a supreme being may have greater understanding of the situation than we do, it is at least possible that God is acting both from a position of power and goodness in creating the world and sustaining the world in the way in which he does. Therefore the argument I am making is not that there is a God, or that there definitely is a good answer to the problem of evil. All I am saying is that the problem of evil does not logically rule out a loving Christian God. Especially given the fact that the same Bible that says God is powerful and good, also says that humans cannot fully understand the reasons why God acts the way he does.
You're proof-texting. If you're going to blatantly ignore scriptures that are inconvenient to you, then the argument is not aimed at you. It's aimed at people who are willing to consider all of the evidence.
Actually I was going out of my way not to proof text. That's why I talk about God's inscrutability as a "dominant theme" of the Bible rather than incontrovertible teaching. I can't actually think of any scriptures that claim God is perfectly intelligible to humans, but modesty requires I don't rule out the possibility. Do you know of any? What I do know, and I've shown above, is that many parts of the Bible indicate that humans can't hope to fully understand God and why he does things the way he does. So to say that the God of the Bible doesn't exist because we can't account for his actions in terms of goodness ignores a large part of what the Bible has to say about God's inscrutability.
No, I'm certain you would claim God is Good, and would likely use the same scriptures Cofty quoted as evidence.
Actually I consider myself agnostic, tending toward atheist. But the more I think about the reasons for disbelieving God, the more I realise it is a choice rather than a result of sound logic or argument. The problem of evil does not disprove God, especially not an inscrutable God such as the God of the Bible. The human mind, even in a universe without a divine being, is surely not the perfect judge of all that does or can exist. We are living in an age where human reason has been elevated almost to the level of Godlike status. That's why arguments that involve relying on human reason as the arbiter of what can exist go unchallenged. It's the dominant ideology of our time.
Raymond Tallis argues that the notion of God is self-contradictory. He explores many reasons for rejecting God says that perhaps a God exists who humans cannot grasp, but he considers it not worthwhile to pursue the possibility. Like trying to understand a "square circle". I think this is ultimately where a reasonable exploration of the arguments for and against God can lead.