"The treatment of evil by theology seems to me an intellectual disgrace. The question at issue is a straightforward one: how are the actual amount and distribution of evil to be reconciled with the government of the world by a God which is in our sense good?" -Blanshard, Reason and Belief, 546
Well that's the problem, isn't it? Talk about stacking the deck in your favor. I can just as easily say:
"The treatment of evil by atheology seems to me an intellectual disgrace. The question at issue is a straightforward one: how are the actual amount and distribution of evil to be considered problematic with the government of the world by a God which is in God's sense good?"
Furthermore, why is "our sense of good," considered good? Is it "good" to allow mothers their own "choice" in the matter of the unborn they carry? To not tie them down with the hassle of children (mistakes) if they don't want to be? To complain about a God who (allegedly) commits mass murder, while we do the same, seems a bit prejudicial. Seems a bit hypocritical. And, just who is the "we" Blanshard is referring to? Cannibals? Christians? Islamic terrorists? Secular humanists?
At any rate, as you can see with Blanshard, the problem of evil for most atheologians stems from what they take to be good or evil. But I don't think it's an understatement to claim that most people would agree with the tautology that if the secular humanist assumes that man is the highest standard, and then gets to define evil as whatever is offensive to man, or lowers him from his exalted platform, and good as whatever lifts man up, places him on the pedestal he deserves, then the argument from evil which runs thus: The amount of evil in this world is hard to reconcile with a God who is supposed be good in the above sense of good, seems to follow most naturally (at least if you're a moral realist).
But without that assumption, without the importing of secular humanism on to the Christian God, the argument doesn't even get off the ground. The great Blanshard's argument was foiled before it began. It may cause secular humanists to pat each other on the back while they mock the Christian God at their candlelight dinners, but the theist doesn't even bat an eyelash at this. It doesn't register on our radar. People say that the problem of evil is a problem for the theist too. But what is the problem of evil? If it's really no more than what Balnshard suggests - that God isn't good in the sinners sense of good - then, rather than having a problem, I wholeheartedly concur. But this is about as problematic as saying that my 7 year old can't hit hard in the Mirco Cro Cop sense of "hit hard."
You want some advice from a Christian theist? You want to have us take seriously your problem of evil argument? Well, I suggest an argument which shows that if the Christian worldview were true, what God allows and ordains is atrocious. That is, give a de jure objection that is not independent of the de facto question. Sure, we may have a psychological problem with evil, we may fail to act consistent with our worldview by not trusting God that he "works all things together for good after the council of His will," but as for an objection aimed at the rationality of belief in God, or against God's existence, though we may try to help you see the error of your argument, it really doesn't cause us to bat an eyelash.