Except that it's a valid question asked by even devoutly religious people every single day. So unless they're looking to start conflict with their own beliefs, it wouldn't make sense to say it's meant only to be mean or spiteful. Not every question that is posed against the nature of God is one posed by evil people out to shake and destroy faith.
People lose loved ones, have tragedy strike, lose their homes, jobs, pets, possessions...Bad things happen to people every single second of every single day. It's not uncommon for the religious to begin to lose faith when it seems that their god isn't looking out for them or doesn't seem to care. It can be difficult to reconcile and they begin to feel like god doesn't care or possibly isn't even there.
You can't actually say for certain what God would or wouldn't do. Designing a creature that only wants to do good is ruling out the option of doing evil. That's not free will. Free will is the ability to choose any number of things without influence. If even one option is unavailable to you, it's no longer free will because it's been chosen for you that you can't do that one thing.
For all we know, if God was all-loving and all-powerful, he would've made us all adorable, hypoallergenic puppies who poop Little Debbie snack cakes and piss chocolate milk. It's not as black or white as you're making it seem -- if God is all-powerful, he can do anything he wants, he's not limited to "this or that". If God is all-loving, how do you even describe love? There are countless kinds of love. A father who disciplines his son for misbehaving can love his son enough to not want to see him fail or make poor choices. These are things we cannot pin down for sure because we cannot ask God (assuming he/she/it exists) and he doesn't seem apt to post on these forums to tell us.
Then where is our free will to fly? I don't mean using machinery, I mean, what if I want to up and fly? And what does that mean about OCD people? Did god decide they were not worthy of the same level of free will as everyone else? Since apparently not making people WANT to do something is all it takes to be denying them free will.
Isn't the entire thing nothing more than a really big red herring for "The Loaded Question?" You know:
However I've an answer, anyway.
Omnipresence or not, good behavior or not, can't your children get on your nerves sometimes? As Sabby said, "Teach them the hard way." Or, "If you insist on being stupid, put your hand on the stove to see how hot it really is." I'm sure that g/God(s) tried the whole soft approach. Don't eat the apple, Stay away from the tree. Talking snakes are evil etc etc etc but "we" didn't listen so he/she/whatever went "fine" see how well you work with a more hands off approach.
Some people don't always approve of that type of parenting but it is a valid way to teach lessons. Once in awhile you step down and put out a fire or two, give that reassuring nod of your head and a smile to say "Good job."
Not take into account there are a several billion people on the earth. Take into account that even if he is everywhere and has the power to do everything, isn't that a major pain in the but? Isn't it kind of self centered and rude to ask for every little problem to be fixed? Isn't that teaching humility and cutting the apron strings? Handle stuff on your own, try your best and you'll be rewarded with "heaven" if you happen to die along the way.
Then again, maybe all the hardship is "the devil." g/God(s)' opposite and unmovable balance to things. (Now we get into more what I actually believe/think). One side of the coin helps, the other side of the coin hurts. Between them, they try and keep a nice balance. It isn't a fight to see who's better, a contest to see who claims the most soles or anything else of that nature. In fact, both sides of the coin want you to do good and "evil" both in order to become a balanced and well rounded person. A pure "good" person is going to do evil things in the name of their "goodness" and even the other way around so wanting an equal balance seems best.
g/God(s) is/are neutral. Neither good nor bad and allows both good and bad to happen in order to allow a complete growth of every individual and the world as a whole.
The reason it is used, other than to perpetuate an inane argument, is to annoy people. Same with the whole "get rid of the devil" argument. Or linking one man's views to that of an entire sect/religion/whatever. The question/paradox is just people trying to "win" a debate with something that can't be answered without distorting a view people aren't willing to distort or by creating a "logical loop hole" to which people can throw out more half-thought argumentation.
It's not a red herring because it's a counter the very assertion that god IS good. If various religions weren't so insistent on that very point, then it would be one, but the fact is they make a big point of this whole "all loving, all knowing, all powerful" business. Clearly one of those points must not be true. It's a simple matter of logic. Either god does not love everyone, or he would find a way. If he can't find a way, then he is either not all knowing, or not all powerful; he either does not know how, or knows how, but cannot do it. Regardless of why it can't be done, it means he's not all powerful, he can't do ANYTHING.
This is how I see it. You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you do a good deed? If good was all that existed that feeling wouldn't exist. If good was all there was then it would be the normal everyday. If everything/everyone was made perfect there would be no such thing as pride in a job well done. Life would be boring.
I have to raise the point (though reading down, I see Hemingway already has): Making sure we feel warm and fuzzy is worth allowing the Holocaust, WW2, The Rape of Nanking... hell, all of those events were in a single period of history. There's also the Crusades, the Klu Klux Klan, Slavery, The Burning of Mount Hiei, etc. Rather it's more important that we feel warm and fuzzy and special for buying a homeless man a pizza? I mean, I suppose that's a valid counter-argument to the initial paradox, but if that were to be the case, I'd have a few select words for this God fellow on his poor judgement.
Nyarly raises a good point as well. Why is it important that we know good from evil, when we could simply not have evil? Especially the Biblical ideas of good and evil, which are frankly extremely abstract and bizarre.
Jude also brings up a very valid point. Not all evil is related to free will, how would eliminating cancer, AIDS, ebola, etc. effect free will?