Every single Theodicy I’ve come accross reads like some wild nonsense to me. They simply don’t make any sense, to the point arguing against them is futile. As an example (though there are plenty), look here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-theism/
If God asked you before the creation of the universe if you would agree to be part of a world that was not certain to be saved—where there was real adventure and real risk—what would you say? James recognizes that a world where the risk of failure is real does not appeal to everyone; but he says that the chances for success that it promises brings zest to life and makes it rational to, “add our fiat to the fiat of the creator” (James 1907, 290–291)
I am not going to dignify James question with an answer. The ultimate puzzle for me is how we got to the point where theodicies are needed. What is the rational between an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God that has created a universe that you are not even supposed to like, as in
(1 John 2:15) Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in them
There is maybe space for a new process theology of a God that is evolving together with humanity, who is neither omnipotent or omnibenevolent.