Sounds like a raw deal for those you wrongly accuse. Or perhaps you’re never wrong in your accusations?
Well, then since my and everyone else’s suffering could also be prevented by this “evil psychopath”, then it actually is perfectly relevant. But as you demonstrated, denial is usually the first of defenses.
And you still haven’t answered the concern that by preventing suffering, the greater good of free moral agency (greater, at least, the the psychopathic supposed god) would be encumbered, potentially creating an even greater existential problem than the one you fixed.
Sure. If free moral agency was limited in such a way that the moral pendulum couldn’t swing to either side with equal magnitude, then it’s not “free”, is it?
That doesn’t logically follow at all. What does follow is that if a psychopath attempts to harm my family, I can utilize my will to stop him. If he succeeds, I grieve. Such is the world today whether there’s a god or not.
It’s the explanation most western religions give. Bad stuff happens on earth because of the fall of man. If you find that absurd, fine with me. I guess you won’t adhere to a western religion.
And if free moral agency is one of the greatest goods, then a loving and omnipotent god won’t eliminate it. As I’ve told you for the hundredth time.