There is a central irony to this "problem of evil" and the shitheaded degenerates who are swayed by it.
You cannot simultaneously reject the existence of an absolute good because of perceived evil, under the claim that the system is too broken for a good God to exist, and then use perceived good as evidence that humans can create an absolute good for themselves as existentialists do, or use perceived evil as evidence for absolute evil or purposelessness. The former is blind and prideful, the latter is hypocritical.
But that's a semantic argument. We can better rebut using a consequentialist approach. In this conception, the fault of the system is perceived, and the benefits of the correct theistic mindset are the main reason to adopt it, as opposed to a doubting anthropocentric view.
Humans cannot truly KNOW what is good. All our material senses and instincts are attuned to a primitive hunter-gatherer lifestyle, where we are blind but correctly guided by our instinct, in ignorance and innocence. Our next weapon is rationality, but rationality only operates on irrational beliefs and values. So, it is just as flawed. Enlightenment values can clearly cause deep wounds to society.
What remains? We must follow divine guidance - broadly speaking the shared religious impulses of humanity, and the morality that results - which restrains us from blindly following bottomless appetites which will destroy us. Spiritual impulses can be corrupted by civilization, ofc. But they obviously counter corrupted material impulses, and are even more compelling and eloquent in an advanced society.
The central issue is that things aren't good because they feel good. Things feel good because they're good in a specific context. That impulse can be warped, or misapplied, to lethal consequence. The problem of evil depends on capitulation to the "why bad exist???? me sad!!!!" caveman response. Then you rationalize away, to try and evoke the same response in others.