Epicurus riddle.

[Jenny A]

The riddle does not assume omnibenevolence.  Rather it notices that if there is an omnipotent god, who does not act to quell evil, that god is malevolent.

But here's the thing.. It's not a riddle it is a paradox. as in the Epicurean paradox. It is a point of philosophy in which is supposed to logically dispel God because his supposed attributes contradict the way the world supposedly works. For God to be identified as Malevolent in a paradox, the philosopher presupposes the opposite to be true. This is reflected in Epicurus' actual work "the problem of Evil."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

No. What the philosopher suggests is that it is evil to allow evil if you can prevent it especially if you created the evil in the first place. It's hard to argue with that. But that is what free will advocates are arguing: free will of the evil doer is more important than the evil done to his victims. If you believe there is evil in the world and that allowing evil is evil, and you don't buy the free will argument you are left with three choices:

1. God is omnipotent but evil.
2. God is not omnipotent.
3. There is no god.

You appear to have chosen option one. There's plenty of Biblical support for that. But why would you worship such a god?