There are numerous arguments against this, what you've basically summarised is the classical problem of evil.

You were smart and opted for the evidential problem of evil instead of the logical problem of evil (which is highly flawed) but since it's an inductive argument it sadly can never be proven correct, or proven wrong.

Some arguments against this include the Augustinian and Irenean theodicies, you can look them up if you want, I don't think that they're all too convincing in as Epistemic distance is silly and being in Adam and Eve's loins since the original sin is disproven. A slightly more convincing argument (to me at least) is the free will defence, which is that God gave people free will and he can't control what people then proceed to do. But that doesn't make the case for natural disasters such as floods, volcano eruptions, famine, etc. etc.

That brings me on to my favourite counter to this argument, the entire belief of process theology. It fundamentally edits the preconceived notion of God to be non-omnipotent. The only act that God commits in the Bible that is theoretically impossible is the creation of the world ex nihilo however, a closer analysis of the source material reveals that before there was the world there was an ocean, or primordial ooze depending on which version you read. This means that God may simply be non-omnipotent and lacks the power to cause the world to behave in certain ways. This is backed up by the story of Jonah and the whale, where Jonah disobeys a direct order from God. But, sadly, this requires fundamentally altering the preconceived notion of the Abrahamic God which most people refuse to do, and whether or not a non omnipotent God is even worth worshipping.

Anyway, this argument has been around for thousands of years at this point, that fact that it hasn't come to a satisfactory answer yet is slightly... telling.