The argument still stands; god is either incapable of creating a universe without suffering where you can still derive meaning, or is not willing to create one.

The only potential explanation I could see is the absolutes in which we set things. The paradox of an ultimate being is flawed (could god microwave a burrito so hot that not even he could eat it?) because it presumes that the being exists within the confines of two opposing absolutes cannot coexist; something either is, or isn’t. However, if some being would be considered supreme in our universe, it could be because it exists outside of its confinements, meaning that conflicting realities (paradoxes) are possible - the burrito is both not too hot for god to eat, while at the same still being too hot for him to eat. It’s just not possible for us to comprehend because in our understanding of reality, something cannot exist simultaneously as the opposite of what we’ve recognized it as. It would mean it either no longer fits the definition, or reality exists in a way that’s so much more complicated at the same time.

It’s often expressed in multiverses in a lot of fictional settings; a universe where god made a burrito so hot not even he could eat it, and a parallel universe where he could, and both universes are both observable and interactable with god. But even then, it’s kinda brain-melting, like some kind of nuclear-hot brain burrito.

I’m sorry, I’m kind of hungry.