Short of suggesting that God’s Love is a fiction - which is what I usually think - there seem to be at least two other possibilities:
1) When speaking of God, what human beings understand by attributes such as Goodness & Truth & Love bears no relation to what those attributes might be in God; God’s “idea“ of a circle might be what among us is a polyhedron, or even a chicken, or something else even less like a circle;
- and, it could be that God‘s “idea” of good, is what we would think of as evil.
Either way, it could be that the notion of goodness among humans is completely useless as a guide to indicating what God judges to be good. IOW, God is ultimately completely unknowable, and revelation is impossible.
Or:
2) God’s Love is real, but, the word falls so far short of the reality that it is of little use as a guide to it. Because there is “far more to” God’s Love - and thus, to God - than can possibly be conveyed by the word or the concept.
Since suffering is a fact, that cannot be trivialised, my guess is that there is no intellectual answer. Some things cannot be known by being reasoned about; human relationships are encounters between persons, not between a person‘s thinking, and what he is thinking of. Reason alone is not adequate to account for human relationships, though it is not of no importance in them. We know people by the act and state of knowing them; just as we swim by swimming, and not by studying swimming, or by thinking about swimming. Human relationships are, so to speak, a form of human personality in practice, & not simply in theory.
I think that coping with suffering is so intimately & irreducibly personal, and even private, that an intellectual answer to it would be useless, & perhaps an impertinence, a piece of all too glib & superficial bad taste. I think God gets round these difficulties, by sharing in the suffering of creatures; and by using and transforming & transnaturalising it, and by redeeming it. And by living it out through human beings, especially in His Church, which is His Body. I don’t think there is an “answer” to “the problem of suffering”, except Christ Crucified and Raised and Ascended.
Why not get rid of suffering entirely; perhaps by never allowing it to arise in the first place ? I think there are several answers to this, none of which is the only possible one.
1) Maybe some goods cannot come to be, unless suffering is allowed as well.
2) Maybe some evils are evil, not in themselves, but from the POV of some, but not all, who encounter them. Among these would be evils that are misused goods.
3) I think there is something to be said for the idea that an evil can be an uncompleted good - that would apply to something such as the imprisonment of Joseph in the Book of Genesis. The theological point stands, even if the story is fiction.
One must of course be very wary of falling into the trap of justifying enormities, however unintentionally.